Dmnkly wrote:

aschie30 wrote:Are raw parsnips really that disgestible? It sounds to me like the bit of "underdone potato" that Scrooge thought caused him to hallucinate in the beginning of A Christmas Carol.

I'd suspect they're closer to raw carrots, not that that makes the dish as a whole sound substantially more appealing to me.

I suppose I could stop speculating and just pick up a parsnip at the store today. It is kind of funny that we have no idea what they taste like raw.

I love roasted or mashed parsnips and I cook with them frequently. I've tasted them raw. The younger ones are more tender and edible raw. I suspect you could use them in a salad the same way you'd use raw carrot. As they get older and bigger, they get more fibrous and tougher and unpleasant to eat raw.

It's not really the taste of the parsnip that bothers me so much, it's the ground grittiness of the parsnip and nuts against the raw fish that gives me the willies.

Best
Michael

I wished all of the bottom three could have been eliminated. They were all so unpleasant at judges' table. While I think they can and should stand up for themselves, they should do it in the context of affirmatively explaining the merits of the flavor combinations or whatever is being criticized. They were just all so rude. Maybe it's the booze in the "stew" room. (At the same time, I also think the judges get away without much explanation, at least in terms of what is broadcast. Colicchio just says I don't think that worked. If the judges are in agreement, I guess I am willing to take that assessment since I can't taste any of the food, but I wish there was more discussion all around of why something didn't work or what alternative might have worked better. There is sometimes but not enough.)

I think Spike should have been dismissed. In part because I find him the most annoying as a person, but more importantly because he just didn't do anything remotely creative. All of the people on this forum could have come up with something more interesting than his chicken salad and something better to do with his tomato and bread. I don't actually fault him with trying to be strategic. I do fault him for not doing anything imaginative beyond that initial strategy.

I love roasted or mashed parsnips and I cook with them frequently. I've tasted them raw. The younger ones are more tender and edible raw. I suspect you could use them in a salad the same way you'd use raw carrot. As they get older and bigger, they get more fibrous and tougher and unpleasant to eat raw.

It's not really the taste of the parsnip that bothers me so much, it's the ground grittiness of the parsnip and nuts against the raw fish that gives me the willies.

I snack on raw parsnips when cooking them for holiday meals and like the taste a lot. Agree they have to be young or from the non fibrous part fo the root. The faux sushi dish though was pretty disgusting though. I'm not sure that audience would have been huge fans of regular sushi anyway.

rickster wrote:I'm not sure that audience would have been huge fans of regular sushi anyway.

I wonder about that. This is completely anecdotal evidence, but I distinctly remember a trip to Tank Noodle where a huge table of cops sat around devouring pho and other Tank awesomeness. It'd be interesting to find out what kind of menu cops really do stick to.

Is it really as Ted Allen wrote on his TCBlog, "A rice-free, raw-foodist, faux “sushi” for the courageous people who work all hours protecting the most American city, who eat half their meals in their squad cars, and who currently have at their fingertips the incredibly delicious and satisfying Max’s Italian Beef on Franklin Street? Um, no."

I'm sure some of 'em liked it. Like Andrew said, some came back for more. Maybe it was because they were still hungry, as Tom opined, but I'm sure they could have gone elsewhere, too.

The bottom three all had crapola dishes. However, the bearded guy was such an arrogant asss that I was glad he got the boot. I mean sushi on the go for a Chicago cop, what a moron.
But how did the chick undercook the shrimp, that is next to impossible. Everything on her table sucked.

On the judging, I don't think the judges are being required to make decisions by the producers and I doubt they are actively seeking to dictate the ultimate outcome in ignorance of the overall merits of the competitors. However, I would not be surprised if they have certain biases (including, perhaps, a bias to favor a contestant who has performed better in the past or, potentially, a bias for gender balance) that have or may come out consciously or unconsciously when they make decisions generally or when they make close calls. All of the elimination challenge judging is a subjective endeavor and these biases will thus likely come into play. (And, in this season, I believe the only two Quickfires that have been judged by objective standards have been the mise en place relay (although even there Tom had to sign off on the adequacy of each task) and the expensive/cheap tasting challenge.)

To suggest that the judges are acting arbitrarily, with malice, with a predestined outcome in mind, or what have you, appears to be unsupported and, as Dom notes, is against the interests of the producers as it would put the legitimacy of the program at risk (although professional wrestling aficionados don't appear to have a problem with predestined outcomes -- not to equate the two). But to think that the judges' biases or personal preferences (such as, for instance, a preference or desire that there will eventually be a female winner or a preference for a particular flavor profile -- as Gypsy Boy suggests Colicchio shows) do not factor into their decision-making is also unsupported and strikes me as naive.

For the record, I'm not suggesting any particular commenter is taking one of these extreme positions or the other, just making the point that surely there is some bias at play in the way the judges determine who stays or goes and that those biases are largely unknowable.

I did not really notice a bias at all. I did find it funny that the one lady said her rice was sabotaged. I think since everyone seemed to be at their own station it would of been easy to see someone messing with your stove. excuses excuses

Matt wrote:On the judging, I don't think the judges are being required to make decisions by the producers and I doubt they are actively seeking to dictate the ultimate outcome in ignorance of the overall merits of the competitors. However, I would not be surprised if they have certain biases (including, perhaps, a bias to favor a contestant who has performed better in the past or, potentially, a bias for gender balance) that have or may come out consciously or unconsciously when they make decisions generally or when they make close calls.

I agree completely, Matt. Obviously, some judges are more capable of being objective than others and everybody has their subconscious biases. I do believe, based on reading their blogs over the run of the show, that the regular judges are genuinely very concerned with being as objective as they can, but obviously there's no way of knowing for sure.

Two interesting points have been brought up regarding the chef's attitudes:

1 ) The 'uncouthness' of this season's contestants. I was taken aback in episode one. It seemed they had to borrow censors from The Osbournes to keep up with all the bleeps. Tony Bourdain would probably say that chefs aren't just sailors, they're pirates. These guys have the mouths to prove it.

As JoelF puts it:

We can probably blame Tony Bourdain for part of this -- his writings have implied that a chef as a badass, a thug, a dictator is the thing to be.

I think this is a chicken and egg thing. In my view, Bourdain is more reflecting the reality of the kitchens he sees rather than inspiring and shaping future environments. Though, if attitudinal issues have grown in the food industry over time, perhaps his observations show a generational shift. To that end, how does this crop of chefs compare to the other seasons in terms of age? Are they getting younger? Dom?

2) Booze does seem to be a much more prominent feature in the stew room this season. Although that could be more about product placement. Maybe anti-tetotaling, too, has something to do with Point #1.

gastro gnome wrote:Though, if attitudinal issues have grown in the food industry over time, perhaps his observations show a generational shift. To that end, how does this crop of chefs compare to the other seasons in terms of age? Are they getting younger? Dom?

That hadn't occurred to me, but it doesn't look like there's much there. By season, mean and median:

Season 1: 33 / 30
Season 2: 31 / 29
Season 3: 31 / 31
Season 4: 31 / 30.5

And this season actually has the lowest number of contestants under 30 by percentage. Season one's mean, BTW, was skewed pretty heavily by Cynthia who, at 52, is the oldest contestant over the run of the show by six years.

gastro gnome wrote:2) Booze does seem to be a much more prominent feature in the stew room this season. Although that could be more about product placement. Maybe anti-tetotaling, too, has something to do with Point #1.

Another good thought. I know Lee Anne talked a lot about the prevalence of booze during her season, but I don't recall if it was present in the stew room or just in the house.

If there is no influence of the producers in the judging, why do they put the disclaimer at the end of each program? My belief has been that the producers may have some role when the judges are split or have difficulty coming to a decision. Or it might be that they point out past tracks records in earlier challenges to jog the judges memories.

Past track records have to matter. No one could convince me they don't.

To prove it, one just has to consider this hypothetical. Two contestants fail at the elimination challenge miserably. Both their dishes are so bad that the judges simply can't decide which is worse. Whatever criteria they apply, there is no way for them to determine in their own minds which of the two chefs should unequivocally be the one to go home. However, one of these chefs, in every past week, has turned in stellar work. The other chef has screwed up consistently, and escaped elimination in past weeks only by the skin of his or her teeth. With the first chef, the bad dish this week seems like some strange anomaly. With the second chef, the bad dish this week seems like more of the same old badness. It strains all credulity that the judges would decide the first chef is going home.

rickster wrote:If there is no influence of the producers in the judging, why do they put the disclaimer at the end of each program? My belief has been that the producers may have some role when the judges are split or have difficulty coming to a decision. Or it might be that they point out past tracks records in earlier challenges to jog the judges memories.

It's because while the judges say they have never (with one exception, below) influenced an elimination, they do have that right, and because of this it has been suggested that there is some legal reason behind that disclosure. Reality show boilerplate, if you will. This is an excerpt from Ted's personal blog on his website (not the Bravo site):

Coldsun wrote: Manuel did not deserve to leave... This is real simple people, THEY ARE BASING THEIR VOTES ON PERSONALITIES... So come on dude.. you can tell us.. how much pull do the producers have in who stays and goes... Manuel was nice and boring, that’s why he left…

Ted replies: Coldsun, A.) nice punctuation, and B.) No, we’re not. If we were basing our votes on personalities, Joey and Howie would have duked it out for the win last season, and Sam would have clobbered Ilan the year before. And did you notice that quiet, nice-guy Harold Dieterle won the first season, while that lunatic, Ken, was the first one eliminated?

I’ll say it again: The producers have absolute authority to interfere with our decisions, and they have never used it. Ever. Not once. Not early in the season, as we are now, nor on the ridiculously late night on Aspen Mountain, when we chose Hung over the much-more-popular Dale for the brass whisk.

Which isn't entirely correct, but the singular exception, as it's been reported by Tom, was under such unusual circumstances that I think Ted can be forgiven for not thinking of it as interference with the judging process (if he was even aware of it -- he wasn't a regular judge yet at that point). When Cliff was kicked off for the whole attempted head-shaving incident in season two. Tom says his first reaction was to disqualify everybody (including Ilan, Sam, and Elia) who was involved, forget about the finals and name Marcel Top Chef on the spot, and when he raised that possibility with the producers, they told him (for obvious reasons having nothing to do with picking producers' favorites, and not unreasonably, I think) that they wouldn't let him do that.

Of course, not to discount your opinion, rickster, it's all a matter of whether or not you believe them. But the judges have all been quite adamant that while the producers do wield that authority, they have never exercised it except in the very unusual situation at the end of season two that had nothing to do with the actual challenges.

When Cliff was kicked off for the whole attempted head-shaving incident in season two

I love reading sentences like this having no idea what the story is.

No, please, don't explain it.

jaybo wrote:Cooking is a male-dominated industry. I don't pretend to know the exact statistics. To me, the heads/tails analogy isn't valid because the outcomes are not statistically equal. The previous seasons aren't the statistical aberration, THIS ONE IS.

Okay, at the risk of setting off the argument again, I just want to address this logical fallacy. Professional cooking is a male-dominated industry, yes. But the Top Chef finalists aren't drawn from the pool of professional cooks--they're drawn from the pool of professional cooks chosen by the producers at the outset of the show. The fact that most chefs are male and thus, if one were to pick the very best chef in the pool of all professional chefs, it would probably be a male has absolutely no bearing (or at least very little bearing) on the likely gender of the Top Chef selected by this show.

Also, there seems to be an implicit assumption in your argument that because males are more predominant in the field, males are better chefs than females and thus if you have a balanced number of chefs at the outset, the odds are that you will end up with more males at the conclusion. I don't think it's fair to make this assumption. There are a lot of factors that contribute to the dearth of professional female chefs. On an individual level, however, female chefs are likely to be no less talented than male chefs.

Essentially, I don't think the relatively high percentage of females in this competition as opposed to in the general population of chefs means that the judges are consciously trying to advance women to the finals at the expense of more talented male contestants. I think there was a conscious decision to choose a gender-balanced cast, and the high percentage of females still remaining reflects that more balanced pool.

Antonia and Richard will be in the finale. Third place is up for grabs with Lisa, Stephanie, Dale and Spike - Lisa and Dale will probably get the third spot in the finale. Stephanie and Spike's luck will run out. I think Dale is very annoying, however, it's up to the judges to decide if he should make it to the top 3. Lisa and Spike are hilarious on TV and I hope one of them makes it to the finale. LOL - I think in the restaurant wars, Lisa, Dale, and Spike are stuck working as a team again. I don't know if anyone noticed this - on the preview for restaurant wars, one of the guest judges, I think Bourdain says that each team will have an extra chef to help them - that'll be interesting. Anyways, interesting season so far - much better than last year.

I'm not sure I agree with MrZ that Lisa and Spike are at about the same odds as Stephanie and Dale.
Among the primary attributes of a chef are leadership, creativity, technique and finesse (LCTF). Let's see who's got what, based on my shallow watching of the show this season:

Richard: LCTF -- He can stumble, but he's like the Cubs in March: best team on paper.
Dale: CTF -- He's dodged leadership a couple times. We'll see what happens in Restaurant Wars
Antonia: LTF -- Her work is solid, but I haven't seen anything imaginative. She has been inspirational, and her attitude is amazing
Stephanie: TF -- She's got creativity but it seems to turn Tom C's stomach (African and Moroccan flavors). I haven't seen her lead
Lisa: CT -- More creative than Spike, but certainly not a leader, and her dishes have never shown me that she has the attention needed for the high quality of Spike: T -- some good knife work, but I haven't seen imagination, inspiration, or that bit of lagniappe that shows finesse
finesse.

Blerg. How does Greasa manage to keep pulling through?

Though, fyi, the wonders of Tivo revealed that it was indeed Dale who pulled the rice down from the shelf.

A few random thoughts on tonight's show -

First - Why do people think Lou Mitchell's is so good? I lean towards hating the place, atmosphere and all. The food there, on occasion, can be extremely crappy; Milk Duds and donut holes notwithstanding. I hate hearing people list it as a Chicago institution. Mitchell's and the Billy Goat Tavern are places that should have been abandoned years, no, decades ago. Yuck!

Second - Antonia was really smart to leave Dale and Lisa and Spike together. That almost guaranteed a win before they hit the Whole Foods.

Third - I hated to see Dale come undone throughout the series. Maybe it was the editing, but his emotions helped to bring him down. The crying at the end was just distasteful.

Even though she doesn't deal well in certain settings (the Family meal under $10 and the short order cook), I've been rooting for Stephanie from the beginning. Antonia has really come into her own in the last few episodes. Richard and Spike should round out the final four.

I, like so many others, can't wait until Lisa packs her knives. Let's hope it's next Wednesday.

About halfway through the show, it was so obvious Dale was about to be eliminated. His eyes were so red from crying during the talking head segments. What the hell.

Yes, let's please see the end of Lisa. I really wish she'd gone this time.

I'm not terribly anti-Tom C. but loved Bourdain in that role. His initial assessment of the difference between the two teams was concise and the kind of observation that actually helps the viewers.

Yay Stephanie and Richard! I want to see them in the final round, along with Antonia.

I was really disappointed to see Dale deny finding the rice so vigorously. I didn't even have to rewind to remember him grabbing it off the shelf and handing it over.

I hate that he got sent home, particularly when the options were the two remaining contestants that I cannot STAND, but based on performance, it was the right choice. Dale had a really bad elimination round. Lisa's laksa sounded atrocious, but he had so many other stirkes against him, and ultimately, as the executive chef, the buck stopped with him (though I'm not sure I agree he was wrong to let laksa on the menu without being familiar with the dish).

Anthony Bourdain was awesome in this episode. I like that his criticism was blunt, but accurate and to the point.

I can't believe that Lisa or Spike are going to make the final four, with a possibility of both of them getting in. Yikes.

I really liked the concept of this weeks quickfire, and wish there had been more time spent showing them work that line, but I realize they are dealing with time constraints and the elimination challenge deserves more airtime.

Dale went from winner to booted off the show in one episode, he really fell apart during this episode. With three cooks who all have backgrounds in some form of Asian food, how could they not pull this off? Those butterscotch scallops did sound really gross, I don't even understand the concept behind it. Richard, Stephanie, and Antonia seem to have been the most successful Restaurant Wars team ever. I can't recall a single complaint from the judges.

I'll agree with everyone else that Bourdain was really good in this episode. If he has the time, and would want to, I think he should replace the Ted/Gail combo.

If I weren't married, I think I'd start writing love letters to Stephanie.

I adored Stephanie in this thing. AB asked her kind of skeptically if she had FOH experience and she said, "Yes, in my own restaurant," in the cutest, most modest but assertive way. When she was sending back orders I thought she would be good to work for. She also rocked that little black dress.

If either Spike or Lica or, god forbid both, gets through I'm going to feel like I did when Lee Ann Wong was eliminated in favor of crybaby Dave. (Thanks, if I recall correctly, to an outside judge.)

What do people think about Lisa's facial piercing? Isn't that somewhat unusual for a cook? I don't think it looks good, anyway, especially since she always looks dirty to start with.

bibi rose wrote:What do people think about Lisa's facial piercing? Isn't that somewhat unusual for a cook? I don't think it looks good, anyway, especially since she always looks dirty to start with.

I've had a problem with that for a while. It sort of adds a permanent sneer to her face. When this is done, she's got to work with somebody on body language because she constantly gives off an air of disgust.

That being said, butterscotch and scallops? Dale had to go.

One more note: Spike HAD to be in FOH. The other two would have been miserable. Good move for him, and probably a good move for the team.

I don't read the Bravo blogs and maybe the details are revealed there but I was surprised that Dale went, given that he seemed to boot only one dish while Lisa booted two. I guess with this set of judges, poor leadership + 1 bad dish trumps 2 bad dishes (and Dale did select the rice that led to the lousy dessert but it's not clear the judges knew that when they made their decision) and I guess I can understand that.

Regardless, this was one of those episodes that made me really wish that previous performance had some bearing on the judges' decisions. IIRC, counting last night, Lisa had been on the losing side of the elimination challenge 6 times in a row. That seems way more than coincidental to me. If last night's decision was as close as it was presented to be, it's a shame that Dale's past performances didn't carry him through.

I thought Bourdain was great and frankly, a big improvement over Tom. He's a hell of a lot more articulate, has a better sense of humor and seems to have a broader palate, too.

=R=

ronnie_suburban wrote:I thought Bourdain was great and frankly, a big improvement over Tom. He's a hell of a lot more articulate, has a better sense of humor and seems to have a broader palate, too.

Amen to that. The longer he stays, the less I like Colicchio. His criticisms, while often worthwhile, are too often downright nasty, personal, and way over the top. He doesn't look comfortable on the screen and, as Ron notes, is not the model of articulateness. Bourdain is very comfortable on-screen, is pithy, acute, and has a knack for making a tough critique without being nasty. I don't need him to replace Ted and company, I need him to replace Tom.

So far as taking the past into account, I fall into the camp that believes that the judges do factor that in. That said, Dale's meltdown--he really needs to get a grip and learn how to deal with people and with the world when things don't go his way--convinced me that, as talented a chef as he is (I have few doubts about that), he had to go. I have no use whatsoever for Lisa, but he was in charge and failed miserably. Even without the butterscotch scallops, he deserved to go--if for nothing else then for his behavior in front of the judges. What a pity.

frankly i thought last night's epi was a set up, it was all too obvious which team was gonna win, well before judging even began. Dale getting sent home was a shocker, though.

I've never been a Colicchio hater -- I think the man has cred and chops and I've liked him well enough up to this point but last night Bourdain really shined. The comments from LTH are all very valid and true and what's more important to me, is that when Bourdain likes something -- he has no problem complimenting you honestly and openly. Just as he criticizes with the same vehemence and honesty. He's also a helluva lot more funny than Colicchio which scores big points to me.

He's simply better tv.

Given how busy Tom has been as of late outside of Top Chef, does anybody else wonder if this is a prelude to replacing him as head judge?