2010 Canadian Brewing Awards

[markaberrant]

I think the problem is actually with the number of BJCP categories, which is bordering on the ridiculous.

There are only 23 official BJCP beer categories, but competitions are welcome to make up their own, combine, colapse, etc as they see fit, and still be sanctioned.

[GregClow]

I think the problem is actually with the number of BJCP categories, which is bordering on the ridiculous.

There are only 23 official BJCP beer categories, but competitions are welcome to make up their own, combine, colapse, etc as they see fit, and still be sanctioned.

Correction: The are 23 top-level BJCP categories, but there are plenty of sub-categories. i.e.:

Category 1 — Light Lager
* 1A. Lite American Lager
* 1B. Standard American Lager
* 1C. Premium American Lager
* 1D. Munich Helles
* 1E. Dortmunder Export

As for the poll that triggered this thread, I haven't officially voted, but my stance is that unless they're specifically called "Craft Beer Awards", then the macros have every right to enter, and if they win in a blind tasting by certified BJCP judges, then so be it.

Frankly, I'm pretty baffled as to why people's panties are in such a bunch about this. Out of 31 categories, I'd say that there are 6 that could arguably be said to favour macrobrews (North American Style Lager, North American Style Premium Lager, North American Style Amber Lager, Light (Calorie-Reduced) Lager, North American Style Amber/Red Ale and North American Style Blonde/Golden Ale). And out of 93 gold/silver/bronze medals awarded, only 3 went to an actual macrobrewery (Molson), with 8 going to other larger macro-ish breweries (Brick, Moosehead, Sleeman).

That leaves 82 medals (88%), plus the two overall awards, going to small/craft breweries. Pretty good, no?

[tuqueboy]

I think the problem is actually with the number of BJCP categories, which is bordering on the ridiculous.

There are only 23 official BJCP beer categories, but competitions are welcome to make up their own, combine, colapse, etc as they see fit, and still be sanctioned.

As Greg correctly points out, there are in fact many, many sub-categories. I understand the need for some kind of guidelines in a competition. I just think that when they're overly-specific, it's a detriment to creativity; it handcuffs brewers so that they basically have to copy an existing beer. Anyway, to get back to the original point of this thread, I voted yes. The reason being that the macro-beers aren't -- as some have said -- competing against the micro beers. They're in separate categories.

[mintjellie]

I don't even follow these awards.

[markaberrant]

Correction: The are 23 top-level BJCP categories, but there are plenty of sub-categories. i.e.:

Category 1 — Light Lager
* 1A. Lite American Lager
* 1B. Standard American Lager
* 1C. Premium American Lager
* 1D. Munich Helles
* 1E. Dortmunder Export

Absolutely, but the BJCP does not recommend judging each sub-category seperately, though you certainly can. The 79 sub-categories are rolled into 23 medal categories. In smaller comps, you may further collapse some of the categories with low entries.

The CBAs used 31 categories (of which you say 6 are "macro friendly") with 290 entries. The GABF had a staggering 79 categories (of which 6 are "macro friendly," a much lower percentage to be sure) with 3523 entries. Like I say, you can slice it and dice it any which way you want, whatever makes sense.

So yes, depending on your point of view, the macro winners at the CBAs were relatively small, but you could also say that it is entirely up to the organizers whether or not all of those "macro-friendly" categories are required... sorta depends on what the goals are of the CBAs.

I read the same crap day in, day out on this website and others about the sorry state of the Canadian beer scene, and while it is improving (with the help of the CBAs to an extent), it still always seems like one step forward, two steps back, with most industry players still trying to play it safe, bowing down to the macros, blaming the govt for everything, and attempting to appease rather than educate the bland majority of Canadian consumers.

[icemachine]

I voted Yes, simply because they are the Canadian Brewery Awards, not the Canadian Craft Brewery Awards.

[matt7215]

I read the same crap day in, day out on this website and others about the sorry state of the Canadian beer scene, and while it is improving (with the help of the CBAs to an extent), it still always seems like one step forward, two steps back, with most industry players still trying to play it safe, bowing down to the macros, blaming the govt for everything, and attempting to appease rather than educate the bland majority of Canadian consumers.

+1

how many ontario breweries are brewing gateway small batch beer in hopes of slowly converting macro drinkers with slightly better beer.

[TheSevenDuffs]

I read the same crap day in, day out on this website and others about the sorry state of the Canadian beer scene, and while it is improving (with the help of the CBAs to an extent), it still always seems like one step forward, two steps back, with most industry players still trying to play it safe, bowing down to the macros, blaming the govt for everything, and attempting to appease rather than educate the bland majority of Canadian consumers.

I couldn't agree more. This is especially true in Ontario.

[Kel Varnsen]

I don't have a problem with it. I mean for one thing wouldn't competition drive the big producers to make better products, the same way that movie studios that make crap in the summer actually spend money to put out good movies in December so that they can win awards. I imagine that the movies coming out each year would change a lot if the academy awards only let independent movies compete.

Plus why is it that it is assumed that only small companies can make good beer? I mean sure that might be the case for the most part in Canada, but if you look to Europe that doesn’t seem to be the case at all. I mean Fuller’s makes more beer than all of the Ontario Craft brewers put together. I haven’t looked but I am sure there are a ton of other quality brewers in Europe where you could say the same thing. So for people to say they don’t like a brewery based solely on the fact that they produce over a certain volume of beer seems a bit silly.

[matt7215]

I mean Fuller’s makes more beer than all of the Ontario Craft brewers put together. I haven’t looked but I am sure there are a ton of other quality brewers in Europe where you could say the same thing. So for people to say they don’t like a brewery based solely on the fact that they produce over a certain volume of beer seems a bit silly.

i agree

i drink a lot of pilsner urquell and they are a huge macro brewery. if Labatts Blue turned into a PU clone id have no trouble buying it for $30 a case.

[Derek]

I said yes.

It's not defined as a 'craft' brewing award, and I don't believe a micro deserves a gold if it isn't judged against them all!

Sure micro's tend to have more flavour, but some of them have more faults too.

[Derek]

I mean Fuller’s makes more beer than all of the Ontario Craft brewers put together. I haven’t looked but I am sure there are a ton of other quality brewers in Europe where you could say the same thing. So for people to say they don’t like a brewery based solely on the fact that they produce over a certain volume of beer seems a bit silly.

i agree

i drink a lot of pilsner urquell and they are a huge macro brewery. if Labatts Blue turned into a PU clone id have no trouble buying it for $30 a case.

Some of the German breweries are an order of magnitude larger than Labatts... yet they still make incredible brews.

[Belgian]

Right, some 'big' brewers are not part of the problem at all.

It's not that most large brewers cannot make great products - they simply don't.

I'm sure some of them could make a superior beer with processed ingredients than the lesser craft brewers could with the best 'whole' grain malt & hops. Macros do in fact employ people with real brewing ability.

[Steve Beaumont]

I am no great fan of the big breweries or their beers, however...

1) To say that something like Canadian or Blue is not true beer because it contains adjuncts or is high-gravity brewed or is simply not to a true beer drinker's taste is absurd. They are obviously beers and technically very good ones, at that.
2) The quibble with "North American-style" categories is spurious, since there is plenty of history behind the flavour development of these kind of lagers, dating back to Prohibition.Or are we now going to say a style has to be around for at least a century before it can be considered true, because if so, there goes American pale ale as well as numerous other styles!
3) I am second to no beer aficionado in my distaste for bland and boring beers masquerading as proper pale ales or porters or whatever, be they brewed by the big boys or the smallest brewpub. (And the latter happens more often than the former, trust me!) But the best way to expose these frauds is to judge them against the real deal, IMO.
4) Be careful in slagging sugars and other adjuncts, since they are used in an amazing number of truly excellent beers.[/list]

[cratez]

I voted no. Pootz is correct in observing that the head-to-head micro/macro competition blurs the distinction between small batch natural all grain craft beer and mass produced adjunct laden "macro slop" in the eyes of uneducated consumers (and there are many), especially when the mega brewers take home multiple awards.

The seemingly "accommodating" style categories and shoe-horning also bother me. If virtually every brewer (Molson, Sleeman, Moosehead) and beer (Laker Lager, Wellington Silver Wheat) can claim to be an "award winner," what does that title mean? How much weight does it carry? Whether or not the awards were blind-judged by experts doesn't matter to me if a beer like Molson Export is crowned as Canada's best blonde ale. It's simply inaccurate, and it risks confusing beer drinkers into thinking that, within certain styles, the big boys are "just as good" as the crafters. They're not.

This debate reminds me of a discussion I had with the manager of a local beer bar here in London. I remarked that many of the macro beers are "technically well-made" to the extent that they're consistent and rarely suffer from issues like spoilage or sour/off traits. The manager questioned how much consistency actually matters if the product itself is garbage. He replied, "it might be well-made...but it's well-made SHIT!"