CAMRA – eternal controversy?
In the past couple of months, the venerated Campaign for Real Ale, first beer consumers’ association in the world, has been in the beerlovers’ eye with some serious controversy.
First there was the attack of chairman Colin Valentine on people urging CAMRA to open its arms to ‘craft’ beers, joining the exclusive cask ales. This issue has been argued extensively elsewhere, so I will not go into this any further than agreeing with the idea that CAMRA has every right to set its own targets, and that my main stumbling stone with the whole issue was much more the condescending, personal way the chairman attacked his ‘opponents’, rather than with the crux of the matter.
Since then, there has been the GBBF, and thus the annual Champion Beer of Britain election. I must confess to have missed most of this matter, mostly, as I am not an avid reader of blogs – the Zythophile blog from Martyn Connell being one of the very few exceptions – but What’s Brewing, the CAMRA magazine gave me insight as to what was being criticized.
First, let me get something straight. I am CAMRA-life member since a good 20 years, and have no intention of changing anything there. Being a member, however, does not hamper me in giving my opinion when I beg to differ with the official one.
What was on? It would seem that some people, bloggers and fora participants, criticized CAMRA for naming a mild as Champion Beer of Britain: first, they called it “typical” as coming from CAMRA, supposed to steer that kind of preferences, and second, that this would harm beer, because mild is seen as “old fashioned”.
What’s Brewing editorial effectively finished off the first criticism: in the end, it is not at all CAMRA that decides the winner, but a table of jurymembers, who do not know which beers are being served. This is a blind tasting, and the people invited are, I would dare to say, above suspicion.
WB did have a very valid point on the second item as well: the idea that mild, would be ‘old-fashioned’, is not an idea that ought to be carried by people pretending to love good beer. I wonder who thinks of mild as such might well be – and I fear it are people that have very little insight in beer as a whole.
And yet, I think CAMRA ought to rethink its CBoB competition, or at least its final. You see, my gutfeel tells me that it IS a bit silly to think that a mild, a beer of 3.7 % ABV, could be deemed ‘better’ than a Barley Wine, a Strong or Old ale, and more of such. Put them next to each other, and I wonder who would dare to maintain such drivel, given normal circumstances (on a sun-drenched terrace in a Mediterranean isle, the result might be slanted differently, I grant you).
Similarily, how do you compare an IPA with an Imperial Stout? How, for that matter, apples with pears? I feel the CBoB competition is excellent in its preliminary rounds, but ends with a something akin to a farce.
But – I hear them, as yourself, protesting loudly – isn’t exactly that what we all do at Ratebeer? Well, we do, and we don’t.
If you will allow me, I’ll try to show parallels and differences by some of my own ratings.
My highest average ratings by style, are for gueuze and lambic. Logical, since I like those beers best. In London, they are out of the picture entirely, thank goodness.
The highest rating for, let’s say, a double IPA, is 4.5 on 5. That’s for an 11.5% ABV beer.
The highest rated Kölsch gets 3.7 on 5. That’s a beer presenting 4.8% ABV. I’d say that getting 3.5+ on such a beer – let’s leave the lambic out of the pic, again – is a pretty good achievement! In fact, it probably equals 4.5 on 5 IN ITS STYLE.
As is often the case, the direct comparison of such extremes totally overlooks the simple fact, that alcohol, ethylalcohol to be precise, is a carrier of flavour. It supports the flavours that stand out in a beer, and balance, or even rounds off the overall mental flavourprofile.
Next to each other, the Kölsch doesn’t stand a chance compared to the overpoweringly flavourful IIPA. Seen from a brewers’ view, however, the Kölsch is a tour de force in dedication to excellence. The IIPA is more an affirmation of the application of a great brewer.
That is why I prefer the real international competitions: World Beer Cup, European Beer star, Mondial de la Bière. The CBoB is aequivalent, until this last, superfluous, twist of common sense. The others wisely stay away from that aberration. Somewhere, CAMRA realizes this, as they avoid bottled beers to interfere in the last round, whilst ciders and perries even can’t enter CBoB.
Sofar, Ratebeer seems to do the same. In the top 50, the DIPA, RIS, e tutti quanti will always prevail . However, we allow for in-style comparisons. Check the smaller, green part of the “score” frame. It gives an overal average in style. That will give you a fair idea how it compares to other, similar beers, away from the overwhelming top 50. Yes, I agree that CBoB also has this: the preliminary rounds.
Unfortunately, that very good strife gets smashed by the trumpetting of the one and only, when the “overall champion” is announced…
Not that I believe for a moment that my lament will have any effect. I just want to shake up people a bit, so they will reflect on what’s going on. And maybe, one day, only comparables will be compared. For the moment, I fear brewers have too much interest, as do CAMRA. For the press coverage, if you get my drift…
Joris Pattyn
September 2011
