In one of his blogs, Tom explained why the judging was based on the performance in that evening’s challenge, and not on whatever else had been done in the past. He said that if you go to a restaurant and the chef is having a bad night and you get a bad meal, you probably won’t go back, no matter what kind of stellar meals he’s cooked in the past.
Well, i guess that’s a fairly reasonable explanation, but the fact is that they do it this way because it makes for simpler, more exciting television.
Can you imagine if the judges’ table each week consisted of a long, drawn-out discussion about who was best (or worst) this week, versus who had been most (or least) consistent over the course of the competition, etc., etc.? Throwing out the weakest person in each particular week makes the whole process more straightforward and simple, which is what television is all about.
Duke? GO? It is an extremely small world.
Relevant to the thread: the person who is the exec chef for a major airline probably makes beaucoups of bucks. Not everyone who goes to chef school is going to end up head chef at a big name restaurant in Manhattan. Therefore, I don’t think the challenge was in any way unfair. Having said that, I think that from now on, the chefs should be allowed to produce their absolute best under ideal conditions.
And I pick Casey and Brian for the final. Sara has never impressed me, and Hung is, well, Hung.
Oh, and CJ didn’t fix broccoli. It was something distantly related, and probably very bitter.
It was broccolini, sometimes called “baby broccoli.”
Not bitter, in my experience. The main problem with C.J.s was that it was dramatically overcooked.
I disagree, any chef could go on to work in industry, and anubdoy who has worked a banquet facility knows that how food stands up to buffet heating, or reheating will produce consotantly better dishes that a chef who has only worked smaller establishments where they essentially produce one offs on demand from a basic arrangement of standards [i have absolutely no idea how many 50 lb sacks of rice I had risottoed to be finished off with additional special additives … or how many gallons of mother sauces I have cranked out.]
Understanding that the food is going to have to be reheated in the plane for another 10 minutes is definitely incentive to rethink that horrid broccolini dish - I would have considered a quick blanch, and adding the crumbs to crisp everything up on the plane. I may have given the salmon a quick basic sear to color the outside, and done the majority of the cooking on the plane - it was about half to 3/4 of an inch thick so 10 minutes would have finished the salmon nicely. I think Sara erred on the side of bland on the couscous, but that in itself was not the worst choice she could have made - beats the hell out of abusing lobster. What might have actually worked better for the lobster dish might have been cold small cubes of potato, sliced scallions, gently poached lobster tidbits in a cold potato salad instead of a hot side disn. They were all fixated on the idea of hot side dishes. Didnt Bourdain like the veal setup because it was very light?
I almost would have considered doing a panini as a side dish perhaps - I know they are considered main dishes, but imagen a lightly grilled veggie panini on the side of a chicken chowder. I have created chowders in an oven before, and reheated them in ovens before [was out of gas for the cooktop but the electric oven worked out fine=) ]