Why are There No New BJCP Style Guidelines?

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.

Grizzlybrew

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
16
Location
Austin
Am I missing something here or has the BJCP not made any changes to their style guidelines since '08?!?!?

I know the BA guidelines included an India Black Ale this year (I also think there were 5 others, can't remember at the moment). It's not a big deal, it just kind of irritates me. I just finished "brew like a monk" and towards the end, Stan is profiling different comm beers and alot of them don't even "fit" the BJCP guidelines. I understand BJCP is for homebrewers and BA is for pro, but I would think there would be more similarity between the two. Or, for the BJCP to allow for greater variety than the BA within styles.

Like I said, maybe I'm just missing something...
 
I guess the simple answer is that the Brewers Association guidelines tend to follow popular trends in the craft brewing industry. That way, its easier for breweries to classify their beer. The BJCP focuses more on classifying, identifying and recognizing classic styles rather than the "beers of the moment".
 
I guess the simple answer is that the Brewers Association guidelines tend to follow popular trends in the craft brewing industry. That way, its easier for breweries to classify their beer. The BJCP focuses more on classifying, identifying and recognizing classic styles rather than the "beers of the moment".

Again, relying mainly on "brew like a monk" at the moment, but it seems there are plenty of "classic" beers that do not fit the current BJCP style guidelines.

i.e. Westvleteren Blond, La Trappe Blond, Duvel (typically 'defines' Golden Strong Ale), Grimberegen Dubbel

It makes me wonder how many other beers would not meet the requirements of BJCP guidelines.

I also understand that it does not really matter that much. Your average judge (or even experienced judge for that matter) cannot tell the difference between 13 SRM and 16 SRM, an OG of 1.087 and 1.094, etc.
 
I also understand that it does not really matter that much. Your average judge (or even experienced judge for that matter) cannot tell the difference between 13 SRM and 16 SRM, an OG of 1.087 and 1.094, etc.

To clarify this point:

I am not sure how much experience you have judging in competitions, but judging is based purely on qualitative assessment and comparing the beer with the descriptions for that category. The "vital statistics" in the guidelines really don't, or at least shouldn't, enter into anyone's scoring decisions.
 
Well, in the case of Duvel, which basically created the Golden Strong, other breweries began making Golden Strong ales too. Over time, the industry standard of that style shifted away from the specs of Duvel into what the BJCP reflects now. Ironically, Duvel is the original Golden Strong and according to the specs, does not fit into the style anymore. I think the same thing can be said of SNPA. Originally, the quintessential APA, might be considered a little weak by today's APA standards.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe some of the beers you are wondering about might have been slowly "bumped out" by the rest of the industry. The BJCP does follow industry trends, but does it a little bit slower than the BA. Also, judges don't really take into account the statistics when judging. Nobody can really tell 14 vs 18 SRM. If a Pilsner is amber, thats bad. If an APA is nearly black, thats bad too. It might be hard to tell the difference between 8 and 9% alcohol, but it is easy to tell if a beer is way out of style.

That is at least my interpretation. I'm not very involved with the BJCP (took the exam in Feb and have yet to get my scores back) so take what I say with a grain of salt.
 
Well, in the case of Duvel, which basically created the Golden Strong, other breweries began making Golden Strong ales too. Over time, the industry standard of that style shifted away from the specs of Duvel into what the BJCP reflects now. Ironically, Duvel is the original Golden Strong and according to the specs, does not fit into the style anymore. I think the same thing can be said of SNPA. Originally, the quintessential APA, might be considered a little weak by today's APA standards.

Same goes for saison....very different from the classic saisons that started the style.
 
It makes me wonder how many other beers would not meet the requirements of BJCP guidelines.

Lots. Australian Pale Ale, Franconian Dark Lager, Czech Dark Lager, Gose etc.

I think you are expecting the BJCP to do something other than what they aim to do. They do not aim to describe every style and they do not aim to describe new styles very quickly. They have a website where you can read all about what their aim is.
 
Well the previous update before that was 2004. Committees take a long time to do anything.

...and before that I believe it was 99?

To the OP: At the BJCP meeting at NHC, Gordon Strong said that they're looking at an update somewhat soon (and specifically mentioned Black IPA). Honestly though, does it really matter if your favorite beers conform to some guideline? As someone who has taken the test (waiting on scores as well), I can easily say that the majority of the best beers I've ever had did not conform to the BJCP or Brewers Association guidelines. They're just that - guidelines, not to be taken along the lines of Reinheitsgebot where they must be followed to the letter.

Bring on the innovative beer! :rockin:
 
judging is based purely on qualitative assessment and comparing the beer with the descriptions for that category. The "vital statistics" in the guidelines really don't, or at least shouldn't, enter into anyone's scoring decisions.

Well then, to play devil's advocate, why list them?...

so take what I say with a grain of salt.

taken.

They have a website where you can read all about what their aim is.

And I quote - "The purpose of the Beer Judge Certification Program is to promote beer literacy and the appreciation of real beer, and to recognize beer tasting and evaluation skills." Confining beer styles to such ridgid requirements (ehem, I'm sorry - guidelines) does not necessarily promote beer appreciation, or at least the variety in which styles can exist in the real world. I will agree to the tasting and evaluation portion though. To me, that's basically what BJCP is - a list of requirements and a test to see of those requirements have been met.

They're just that - guidelines, not to be taken along the lines of Reinheitsgebot where they must be followed to the letter.

I know, I know :mug: I'm getting too uptight tonight. I serve on a historic preservation council and we have this discussion about "guidelines" quite often. I guess I'm of the mindset, that if you set a standard (my interpretation of guidelines), then you should challenge yourself to meet that.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not even sure what I'm arguing. It kinda seems like (1) people brew to meet BJCP and (2) BA works to help define what people brew - kind of a prescriptionist vs. subscriptionist angle...
 
There's a specialty category for the less common beers. Having a style guideline for a gose wouldn't really do a lot for the homebrew community or for judging in general because it isn't likely you're going to have a big influx of the style. Even then, trying to find examples of beers that are rare like that would be a chore.

I think the list is comprehensive for modern styles. If you add too many more, you're going to have a bulky compendium that would get too unwieldy. You have to draw a line somewhere.
 
From what I've heard from high ranked BJCP judges, they wait to see if fad beers stick around a while before creating a category. It would not surprise me if in the next BJCP revision that they do add a couple additional styles.

As was said above, there is the specialty category for beers out of style. That is usually the proving ground for additional styles. Rye and Black IPA's are now common beers that are outside the regular IPA categories and are often found in that category.

My own opinion, I think that not only should there be a Black IPA category, but I think there should be a specialty category for "imperialized" beers. Everyone is making imperial pilsners, porters, reds etc. and I think separating them out of the general specialty category would help.
 
From what I'm hearing, there will be a revision in 2011. May or may not be accurate, as I'm not on the board.
 
It kinda seems like (1) people brew to meet BJCP and (2) BA works to help define what people brew - kind of a prescriptionist vs. subscriptionist angle...

I'd say that you're right, but here is the reasoning:

1) People brew to meet BJCP for 2 reasons:
A- Because it's easier to learn to brew to style first before shooting from the hip, and
B- To win competitions. You won't win if you're not brewing to the guidelines against which your beer will be judged.

2) It's much easier for the BA to keep track of and quantify "what people brew". They have a large list of members and an industry to take the pulse of. Homebrewing runs the gamut of what is brewed and it would be impossible to really keep track of who brews what.
 
Rye and Black IPA's are now common beers that are outside the regular IPA categories and are often found in that category.

That'd be a mistake. As much as I enjoy both rye and black IPAs, I'd hammer them (especially the black) if they put in front of me on a judging table to be judged as 14B. Unfortunately I've had some really good beers while judging that I had to give bad scores to because they were entered into the wrong category. :(
 
Go read all of the luv in the CDA (Cascadian Dark Ale) thread and you'll see why the BJCP updates take time.
 
Again, relying mainly on "brew like a monk" at the moment, but it seems there are plenty of "classic" beers that do not fit the current BJCP style guidelines.

i.e. Westvleteren Blond, La Trappe Blond, Duvel (typically 'defines' Golden Strong Ale), Grimberegen Dubbel

It makes me wonder how many other beers would not meet the requirements of BJCP guidelines.

I also understand that it does not really matter that much. Your average judge (or even experienced judge for that matter) cannot tell the difference between 13 SRM and 16 SRM, an OG of 1.087 and 1.094, etc.

I guess I don't see why a commercial beer should fall within the BJCP guidelines, which are for homebrew. And if you want to propose a new style for the BJCP guidelines, there are outlines of how to write it on the website, IIRC.
 
That'd be a mistake. As much as I enjoy both rye and black IPAs, I'd hammer them (especially the black) if they put in front of me on a judging table to be judged as 14B. Unfortunately I've had some really good beers while judging that I had to give bad scores to because they were entered into the wrong category. :(

The BYO type black IPA (one that tastes like a regular IPA with your eyes closed) should score well as appearance is 3 points and covers things other than color.
 
The BYO type black IPA (one that tastes like a regular IPA with your eyes closed) should score well as appearance is 3 points and covers things other than color.

Maybe it would get a decent overall score, but every point counts, especially in one of the most-entered categories. I personally take 2 off for appearance if something is WAY off like that.
 
I'd say that you're right, but here is the reasoning:

1) People brew to meet BJCP for 2 reasons:
A- Because it's easier to learn to brew to style first before shooting from the hip, and
B- To win competitions. You won't win if you're not brewing to the guidelines against which your beer will be judged.

I didn't mean it in a bad way. I guess I meant that with the BJCP, sometimes, it seems the styles come first and are then used for homebrewers to target when they brew, whereas the BA attempts to define what exists in the market place after the styles have been brewed. I understand, that BJCP also recognizes styles and are not creating styles out of thin air, but maybe I'm just talking about the way that people use the two systems or at least the way I perceive people using them.

I guess I don't see why a commercial beer should fall within the BJCP guidelines, which are for homebrew. And if you want to propose a new style for the BJCP guidelines, there are outlines of how to write it on the website, IIRC.

I understand that people will have differing opinions of what is the best example of a style, but it also seems there shouldn't be that much disparity in the parameters of a "style". I think the lines between some styles are naturally going to blur and I guess that's why I like the broader scopr of BA - I feel like it reflects what happens.

As far as new styles, the ones I'm interested in seeing are the same ones that most people know about. I am confident the BJCP is aware of the trends. If the persistence of the community hastens the approval process for a style, I might write in, otherwise I feel as though I would be beating what I'm sure is a deadhorse.
 
I didn't mean it in a bad way. I guess I meant that with the BJCP, sometimes, it seems the styles come first and are then used for homebrewers to target when they brew, whereas the BA attempts to define what exists in the market place after the styles have been brewed.

I don't think this is true at all, though feel free to quote a specific example.

The BJCP, in general, is promulgating descriptions of styles only after substantial numbers of brewers have entered them in competitions. In my time this would include IIPA and Baltic Porter. Certainly you aren't claiming that nobody was brewing these before they hit the style guidelines.
 
Certainly you aren't claiming that nobody was brewing these before they hit the style guidelines.

Of course not. That would be a little ridiculous. Especially as new trends tend to develop amongst homebrewers initially.

I'm just going to shut up now and say that I prefer the wider parameters of the BA guidelines and the swiftness with which they respond to the brewing community.
 
One other factor in the BA/GABF categories is that those styles are fore commercial beers, where breweries have possible financial gain by winning a medal. By creating more categories, two things are accomplished:

1. More awards are given and more beers are medal winners.

2. Numbers of beers in each category entered are lower, making the competition easier to manage. That way the American IPA category doesn't have 500 entries. There are many different IPAs on the list.

English-Style India Pale Ale
American-Style Strong Pale Ale
American-Style India Pale Ale
Imperial India Pale Ale
Imperial Red Ale
American-Style India Black Ale

American Style IPA is still the largest category with 150 beers entered last year, but the number would be larger without American Strong Pale Ale, Imperial Red and India Black.

If I had to differentiate between the philosophy of the BA and BJCP, I'd say the BJCP wants to award brewers for brewing great beer to style, and the BA wants to award brewers for just making great beer.
 
Just to revive a dead thread, I wouldn't mind seeing a 2012 or 2013 revision of the BJCP. Seems like there are lots of new styles to profile since the minor revision in 2008
 
I wouldn't count on it....I have a lot of admiration for the BJCP organization but it does move awfully slow. It seems that the BA is much more accepting of "newer" beer styles. Whereas BJCP has very strict guidelines and anything that doesn't fall into those guidelines goes into the "Specialty Beer" category.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top