[JKL]

I went to my LHBS last night to pick up some yeast for my upcoming IIPA and got to looking through the malts for something to add a little depth.  Long story short, the owner and I start talking about malts and boil time.  He mentions that the brewer at a local brewpub entered a IIPA at the GABF a couple of years ago and got docked by the judges for using crystal malts in the recipe.  They commented that an "IIPA shouldn't have any crystal malts and should get all the caramel / sweetness from the boil".  Is there any truth to this?  Most of the IIPA recipes I've seen have some variation of caramel/crystal malts in them.  If so, (not ever doing longer than a 60min boil) I find it hard to believe that you can get that much more flavor (sorry...high molecular weight heterogeneous polymers) out of a 90 or even a 120 minute boil.  
-J.K.L.

[denny]

Personally, I would disagree.  I like the flavor from some crystal malt.  IMO, an IIPA should also include some sugar to drop the FG and distinguish the beer from an Am. BW.

[gordonstrong]

I'd think that's primarily a personal opinion of those set of judges.  That said, try it without crystal malts and see if you like it.  I find they tend to get in the way of hops.  But it depends on your taste preference.  Not every IIPA has to taste like Pliny (although most would probably be better if they did).

I think the boil time argument is mostly BS, though.  You'd have to boil it very hard to get a flavor difference unless you hit the first runnings hard like with a Scotch ale.

It doesn't matter where you get the flavors.  It matters whether you want the flavors there or not.  You can get flavors from process, ingredients, or both.  I think caramel flavors from process would be just as distracting as caramel flavors from malt.  And I doubt judges could really tell the source given the final product.