JasonM wrote:I've got my pantry almost stocked for the season!!! Ray, I LOVE your sauce!!!!



(I said I LOVE your sauce !!! heheheheheh)

Damn, I thought I was the only one that had about a dozen sauces sitting in my cabinets!!

there's 16 on that shelf, and a few more in my kitchen cabinets

In the thread above, we’ve spent some time talking about whether it’s “proper” to use BBQ sauce as anything other than a type of condiment. Surely it’s true that sauce can act as Spackle that covers mistakes in fire management, meat handling, etc., but it doesn’t hold that this means BBQ sauce is not good when cooked onto meat (not a lot of sauce, and not too long, but a reasonable amount of sauce for a brief amount of time before the meat is ready to serve).

Charlie McKenna of Lillie’s Q made a good analogy re: the trend among some of us to ask for BBQ sauce on the side or our ribs. He said, “Imagine going to a French restaurant and you’re having fish, and you ask for sauce on the side. It would be crazy.”

The use of BBQ sauce as condiment rather than as ingredient is also kind of like when people order salad and then ask that dressing be put on the side. I understand that in some places (i.e., the places few of us care to eat), they drench the leaves with dressing, and that’s also crazy, but at a decent eating place, to ask for dressing on the side is kind of “an insult to the chef.” Not only that, but there’s no way, at the table, you can get the dressing to evenly cover the leaves. When it comes to saucing, I’d rather leave it to the professionals.

Now, on the BBQ circuit, the meat is going to be unsauced for judging, and that makes perfect sense. But there’s all kinds of stuff you do in judging or professional tasting situations that you wouldn’t want to do if enjoyment were your main goal. For instance, at a serious wine tasting, it’s customary that you’re not going to have bread, or cheese or charcuterie because all those things modify the essential values of the wine you’re drinking and assessing. Understood. Cool with that. But if you want to have a wonderful gustatory – as opposed to “professional” – experience, then bring on the bread, cheese, charcuterie…and sauce.

When Achatz recently stopped by Lillie’s for lunch, he ordered everything on the menu. Reports are that his favorite was the ribs, which are brushed lightly with sauce during the final moments of cooking to create a thin layer of caramelized sweet spiciness over the meat.

David Hammond wrote:“Imagine going to a French restaurant and you’re having fish, and you ask for sauce on the side. It would be crazy.”

This happens as a matter of course in every restaurant...especially those who cater to the "ladies who diet".

David Hammond wrote:Now, on the BBQ circuit, the meat is going to be unsauced for judging, and that makes perfect sense.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Everything is sauced for judging, sometimes overly sauced. That's why, even though I'm a certified KCBS BBQ Judge, I have little desire to actually judge at these events. The over saucing of the entries offends my sensibilities and I can't justify picking a "winner" from entries of food that I wouldn't normally eat.

David Hammond wrote:Charlie McKenna of Lillie’s Q made a good analogy re: the trend among some of us to ask for BBQ sauce on the side or our ribs. He said, “Imagine going to a French restaurant and you’re having fish, and you ask for sauce on the side. It would be crazy.”

(I find it very amusing that "BBQ guys" will either choose to be lumped in with fine dining or stand firmly opposed to fine dining when it suits the argument.)

I'm usually very willing to order an item the first time "as the house prepares it", but after that I've got no problem asking for any condiment applied by a server/counterperson to be adjusted within reason. (Unlike the guy in front of me in line at Soprafina on Friday who asked for his sandwich with 1/3rd the normal amount of mayo).

If the sauce is applied during cooking, that's fine. I'm not going to ask anyone to adjust their overall BBQ cooking process for me alone. But if they want to dump a ladle of something on my plate of food right before handing it to me, I've got no issue asking them to step off.

I don't think his analogy holds water (I wouldn't go so far to call it a strict "false analogy" but it's close). On a strict debating scorecard, he makes two logical fallacies that kill the thing for me:

--The Fallacy of Many Questions (presenting questions that assume universal answers): This argument assumes that everyone accepts that "asking for sauceless fish in a French restaurant is crazy". Everyone does not accept that opinion, as Steve pointed out. Maybe foodies and chefs hold that opinion, but everyone does not.

--The Package-Deal Fallacy (everything related for a culture must be consistently related that way across the board): Even if I accepted the sauceless-fish question, all of our restaurant experiences are not a "package deal". Culturally we treat burgers, BBQ, sandwiches, pizza, etc. in a flexible manner that appeals to the diner. This is simply not crazy or even a trend. It's a culturally accepted norm. I wouldn't eat with my hands at Everest, but I'm sure I'm expected to at Lillie's Q.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:(I find it very amusing that "BBQ guys" will either choose to be lumped in with fine dining or stand firmly opposed to fine dining when it suits the argument.)

Sweeping Generalization.

eatchicago wrote:--The Fallacy of Many Questions (presenting questions that assume universal answers): This argument assumes that everyone accepts that "asking for sauceless fish in a French restaurant is crazy". Everyone does not accept that opinion, as Steve pointed out. Maybe foodies and chefs hold that opinion, but everyone does not.

To say something is "crazy" is not to state a universal principle but just a perception of a practice.

eatchicago wrote:--The Package-Deal Fallacy (everything related for a culture must be consistently related that way across the board): Even if I accepted the sauceless-fish question, all of our restaurant experiences are not a "package deal". Culturally we treat burgers, BBQ, sandwiches, pizza, etc. in a flexible manner that appeals to the diner. This is simply not crazy or even a trend. It's a culturally accepted norm. I wouldn't eat with my hands at Everest, but I'm sure I'm expected to at Lillie's Q.

That's true, but what McKenna is suggesting is that the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of BBQ at his place is equivalent to the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of food at a "fancy" restaurant.

David Hammond wrote:

eatchicago wrote:--The Fallacy of Many Questions (presenting questions that assume universal answers): This argument assumes that everyone accepts that "asking for sauceless fish in a French restaurant is crazy". Everyone does not accept that opinion, as Steve pointed out. Maybe foodies and chefs hold that opinion, but everyone does not.

To say something is "crazy" is not to state a universal principle but just a perception of a practice.

But he's still saying "X is crazy, therefore Y is crazy". If he's really saying "I think X is crazy and I think Y is crazy", well than I can't argue with what his opinions are.

David Hammond wrote:

eatchicago wrote:--The Package-Deal Fallacy (everything related for a culture must be consistently related that way across the board): Even if I accepted the sauceless-fish question, all of our restaurant experiences are not a "package deal". Culturally we treat burgers, BBQ, sandwiches, pizza, etc. in a flexible manner that appeals to the diner. This is simply not crazy or even a trend. It's a culturally accepted norm. I wouldn't eat with my hands at Everest, but I'm sure I'm expected to at Lillie's Q.

That's true, but what McKenna is suggesting is that the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of BBQ at his place is equivalent to the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of food at a "fancy" restaurant.

I can accept that and I'm always willing to try it his way first. But his argument is not a very convincing way of making that point, at least to me. "You must treat my food one way because you treat other food this way" is much less convincing than "Let me tell you about how I do things and how it's a little bit different than what you might be used to...."

Best,
M

eatchicago wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

eatchicago wrote:--The Fallacy of Many Questions (presenting questions that assume universal answers): This argument assumes that everyone accepts that "asking for sauceless fish in a French restaurant is crazy". Everyone does not accept that opinion, as Steve pointed out. Maybe foodies and chefs hold that opinion, but everyone does not.

To say something is "crazy" is not to state a universal principle but just a perception of a practice.

But he's still saying "X is crazy, therefore Y is crazy". If he's really saying "I think X is crazy and I think Y is crazy", well than I can't argue with what his opinions are.

Michael, in most evaluative statements the "I think" is implicit though understood and it doesn't seem necessary to flag value statements (e.g., this good, that bad, this crazy, that not) as opinions because they obviously are.

eatchicago wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

eatchicago wrote:--The Package-Deal Fallacy (everything related for a culture must be consistently related that way across the board): Even if I accepted the sauceless-fish question, all of our restaurant experiences are not a "package deal". Culturally we treat burgers, BBQ, sandwiches, pizza, etc. in a flexible manner that appeals to the diner. This is simply not crazy or even a trend. It's a culturally accepted norm. I wouldn't eat with my hands at Everest, but I'm sure I'm expected to at Lillie's Q.

That's true, but what McKenna is suggesting is that the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of BBQ at his place is equivalent to the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of food at a "fancy" restaurant.

I can accept that and I'm always willing to try it his way first. But his argument is not a very convincing way of making that point, at least to me. "You must treat my food one way because you treat other food this way" is much less convincing than "Let me tell you about how I do things and how it's a little bit different than what you might be used to...."

Your latter statement is probably actually closer to McKenna’s point.

David Hammond wrote:

eatchicago wrote:But he's still saying "X is crazy, therefore Y is crazy". If he's really saying "I think X is crazy and I think Y is crazy", well than I can't argue with what his opinions are.

Michael, in most evaluative statements the "I think" is implicit though understood and it doesn't seem necessary to flag value statements (e.g., this good, that bad, this crazy, that not) as opinions because they obviously are.

In evaluative statements, yes. In persuasive statements, no. Stating an opinion through analogy and making an appeal through analogy carry different assumptions. Having been present at the time of the quotation, you are obviously more qualified to determine whether or not he was expressing an opinion or making an appeal to others to change their opinions. I took your post to mean the latter. If he's just expressing disdain for the trend, fine. If he's asking his customers to stop doing it, then that's a different point.

Going back to the "package deal" scenario, there are things that are generally-accepted and things that are not. Labeling something as "crazy" can mean either: "I think this is crazy" or "the general public accepts this behavior as crazy". If it were a persuasive argument, the latter is the default point.

We approach argumentum ad nauseam.

In any case, whenever I make my first trip to Lillie's Q, I intend on having things as the kitchen prepares them. If I don't like it, I may have to act a little crazy on return trips.

Best,
M

eatchicago wrote:In any case, whenever I make my first trip to Lillie's Q, I intend on having things as the kitchen prepares them.

When you do, I’d recommend the shrimp n’ grits

Actually, there are plenty of people who go to French restaurants and order plain fish.

This whole argument kind of constitutes different ways thinking about what restaurants are supposed to do.

The foodie concept is that one eats out to appreciate the chef's artistry, and therefore should eat the food as the restaurant prepares it -- with certain permitted variations like the temperature of a steak or the type of dressing on your salad -- and if you don't care for it that way, then you don't ask for alterations, you just don't return. Some people who feel strongly about that were schooled by their mothers: "Eat what's put in front of you (or else)."

At the other end of the spectrum, there are people who never eat anything the way it comes: Substitute this, leave off that, add the other thing, put all sauces and dressings on the side. One diner of my acquaintance does all that and asks for her water without ice. Still others go so far as to ask for dishes that aren't even on the menu. These people believe that the purpose of a restaurant is to sell them what they want to eat.

Most of us fall on a spectrum somewhere between. I rarely ask for substitutions and almost never request off-menu items, but I do sometimes ask for sauces or gravies on the side or "light" in situations when I believe these are poured on just before serving. I also become very annoyed if salt and pepper aren't on the table.

stevez wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Now, on the BBQ circuit, the meat is going to be unsauced for judging, and that makes perfect sense.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Everything is sauced for judging, sometimes overly sauced. That's why, even though I'm a certified KCBS BBQ Judge, I have little desire to actually judge at these events. The over saucing of the entries offends my sensibilities and I can't justify picking a "winner" from entries of food that I wouldn't normally eat.

Steve, you must be getting all the wrong entries. While I have never been a judge at a KCBS event, I have been working at the American Royal for the past 18 years; running the Barbecue Sauce Store. I've seen hundreds of entries and eaten the leftover hunks of meat that were not entered after those entries were turned in.

Now I won't say that none of those entries were sauced, but I will say that the overwhelming majority were served naked (the meat, not the pitmaster, although who's to say what goes on when the lights go out). In fact, while it is not an actual rule, it is a written recommendation to all entrants that their entries not be sauced for fear of raising suspicions among the judges. Any pitmaster I've spoken to, holds to that "recommendation" as if it were the word of God.

Again, I'm not sayin' it can never happen, but any 'Que man worth his garlic salt will send his meat to the judging tent un-sauced.

Buddy

David Hammond wrote:

That's true, but what McKenna is suggesting is that the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of BBQ at his place is equivalent to the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of food at a "fancy" restaurant.

At any "fancy" restaurant I've even dined they made it a point to cater to whatever their patrons requested - and most especially NOT to make their patrons feel uncomfortable for making such requests.

Having grown up in the South and visiting many BBQ places between NC and Alabama I can say I've never been to a single one that had an issue with a request for sauce on the side - and many actually asked in advance if you wanted it with or without - just as many ask if you want slaw on your sandwich.

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:
Again, I'm not sayin' it can never happen, but any 'Que man worth his garlic salt will send his meat to the judging tent un-sauced.

Buddy

I think we have to make a distinction between sauce that is applied just before serving and sauce that is applied during the finishing process and is thickened or caramelized under heat.
The latter is quite common in competition 'Cue.

Kman wrote:

David Hammond wrote:

That's true, but what McKenna is suggesting is that the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of BBQ at his place is equivalent to the amount of care and attention paid to the preparation of food at a "fancy" restaurant.

At any "fancy" restaurant I've even dined they made it a point to cater to whatever their patrons requested - and most especially NOT to make their patrons feel uncomfortable for making such requests.

Having grown up in the South and visiting many BBQ places between NC and Alabama I can say I've never been to a single one that had an issue with a request for sauce on the side - and many actually asked in advance if you wanted it with or without - just as many ask if you want slaw on your sandwich.

I hope nothing I said would lead anyone to construe that McKenna would make you feel uncomfortable if you asked for sauce on the side. In fact, I think his fine dining background would incline him to "cater to whatever patrons request."

I'm sure, too, that Robert at Honey 1, Mack at Uncle John's and Barry at Smoque would, also, be glad to put your sauce wherever you want it.

Kman wrote:Having grown up in the South and visiting many BBQ places between NC and Alabama I can say I've never been to a single one that had an issue with a request for sauce on the side - and many actually asked in advance if you wanted it with or without - just as many ask if you want slaw on your sandwich.

I-57 Rib House,various locations in the south suburbs,have refused to serve me rib tips with sauce on the side. For that reason I will never patronize them.

David Hammond wrote:I'm sure, too, that Robert at Honey 1, Mack at Uncle John's and Barry at Smoque would, also, be glad to put your sauce wherever you want it.

For some of those locations, I think they charge extra.

=R=

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:

stevez wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Now, on the BBQ circuit, the meat is going to be unsauced for judging, and that makes perfect sense.

Actually, just the opposite is true. Everything is sauced for judging, sometimes overly sauced. That's why, even though I'm a certified KCBS BBQ Judge, I have little desire to actually judge at these events. The over saucing of the entries offends my sensibilities and I can't justify picking a "winner" from entries of food that I wouldn't normally eat.

Steve, you must be getting all the wrong entries. While I have never been a judge at a KCBS event, I have been working at the American Royal for the past 18 years; running the Barbecue Sauce Store. I've seen hundreds of entries and eaten the leftover hunks of meat that were not entered after those entries were turned in.

Now I won't say that none of those entries were sauced, but I will say that the overwhelming majority were served naked (the meat, not the pitmaster, although who's to say what goes on when the lights go out). In fact, while it is not an actual rule, it is a written recommendation to all entrants that their entries not be sauced for fear of raising suspicions among the judges. Any pitmaster I've spoken to, holds to that "recommendation" as if it were the word of God.

Again, I'm not sayin' it can never happen, but any 'Que man worth his garlic salt will send his meat to the judging tent un-sauced.

Buddy

Buddy most KCBS teams sauce entries once its in the turn in box so you are most liekely eating non turn in meats.
As a KCBS cook and judge I will say most entries are sauced in KCBS comps..some more than others. Myself I only sauce ribs and chicken for turn in and a very light coat as well..more of a glazing.

p.s was hoping to be at the BBQ Sauce Store this year wont be able to due to some health issues in family. Hope you guys raise a lot of money this time around!

Sorry you won't be joining in on the fun. Hope all is well, or will be well in short time.

The entries I've seen usually have sauce served in a cup, on the side, tucked in with the entry. Anyone I've spoken to adheres to the "sauce on the side" philosophy specifically because of the perceptions of a flawed entry raised by sauced meat.

Again, I'm not saying that's a 100% rule, just my observation.

Buddy

BuddyRoadhouse wrote:Sorry you won't be joining in on the fun. Hope all is well, or will be well in short time.

The entries I've seen usually have sauce served in a cup, on the side, tucked in with the entry. Anyone I've spoken to adheres to the "sauce on the side" philosophy specifically because of the perceptions of a flawed entry raised by sauced meat.

Again, I'm not saying that's a 100% rule, just my observation.

Buddy

thats definately illegal in KCBS at least ..only thing that can be in the turnin in box is meat and garnish..no pooling of sauce..etc..
other contests im sure its ok

David Hammond wrote:When Achatz recently stopped by Lillie’s for lunch, he ordered everything on the menu. Reports are that his favorite was the ribs, which are brushed lightly with sauce during the final moments of cooking to create a thin layer of caramelized sweet spiciness over the meat.

Judicious a la minute kiss of sauce for G Achatz aside, my one experience with Lillie's ribs the glaze dry rub combination sat a bit too long and turned gummy/pasty, I will order ribs dry. That said a scant brush of sauce by a deft hand is entirely different than the half-cup ladle of mediocre BBQ sauce misused at 95% of Chicago BBQ joints.

It seems the sauce debate will never end, BBQ sauce is a condiment, a dab here, swipe there, not a la brea tar pit of sludge with dusty bones popping though disintegrating pig flesh.

G Wiv wrote:

David Hammond wrote:When Achatz recently stopped by Lillie’s for lunch, he ordered everything on the menu. Reports are that his favorite was the ribs, which are brushed lightly with sauce during the final moments of cooking to create a thin layer of caramelized sweet spiciness over the meat.

Judicious a la minute kiss of sauce for G Achatz aside, my one experience with Lillie's ribs the glaze dry rub combination sat a bit too long and turned gummy/pasty, I will order ribs dry. That said a scant brush of sauce by a deft hand is entirely different than the half-cup ladle of mediocre BBQ sauce misused at 95% of Chicago BBQ joints.

It seems the sauce debate will never end, BBQ sauce is a condiment, a dab here, swipe there, not a la brea tar pit of sludge with dusty bones popping though disintegrating pig flesh.

no debate on my end..i agree on conservative use of sauce ..it should compliment not overpower..but then again i feel that way about any sauce..on pasta..on fish..etc...

Head's Red BBQ wrote:

G Wiv wrote:

David Hammond wrote:When Achatz recently stopped by Lillie’s for lunch, he ordered everything on the menu. Reports are that his favorite was the ribs, which are brushed lightly with sauce during the final moments of cooking to create a thin layer of caramelized sweet spiciness over the meat.

Judicious a la minute kiss of sauce for G Achatz aside, my one experience with Lillie's ribs the glaze dry rub combination sat a bit too long and turned gummy/pasty, I will order ribs dry. That said a scant brush of sauce by a deft hand is entirely different than the half-cup ladle of mediocre BBQ sauce misused at 95% of Chicago BBQ joints.

It seems the sauce debate will never end, BBQ sauce is a condiment, a dab here, swipe there, not a la brea tar pit of sludge with dusty bones popping though disintegrating pig flesh.

no debate on my end..i agree on conservative use of sauce ..it should compliment not overpower..but then again i feel that way about any sauce..on pasta..on fish..etc...

Conservative use of sauce definitely preferable to me, though it may be true that Chicago-style ribs tend to be over-sauced, as GWiv notes.

G Wiv wrote:That said a scant brush of sauce by a deft hand is entirely different than the half-cup ladle of mediocre BBQ sauce misused at 95% of Chicago BBQ joints.

It seems the sauce debate will never end, BBQ sauce is a condiment, a dab here, swipe there, not a la brea tar pit of sludge with dusty bones popping though disintegrating pig flesh.

Agree entirely, and I am one who enjoys that deft brush of sauce caramelized onto the ribs just before serving. (I agree that Lillie's Q "glaze" is too thick.)

I think the saucy percentage is more like 99%. Off the top of my head, the only two places I can think of that don't automatically serve ribs swimming in sauce are Smoque and Bar-B-Que Bob's.

I went out to SBR's today for lunch. Spent over 20.00 for a 3 meat lunch with beans and slaw. Ribs were tasty, Texas sausage was okay, but glopped in sauce, the feature of the plate though, the sliced brisket, needs work-big time. Dry as a bone and hard as my head, so lean that there was no smoke ring and and very little flavor. To say it was chewy is an understatement. Sides were totally pedestrian and Orville Kentish. It must be bad if I leave half of the order of brisket. I was nearby, so I thought I'd try the place. My mistake! Just a few minutes more driving and I could of had lunch at Smoque.

I see a client out this way in Elk Grove and when out there usually pass by SBR after my meetings because I'm heading to Tensuke Market to eat Japanese up the road. Decided to pull in today at 12:30pm. Really glad I stopped.

Walked in and place was full up with lunch diners at tables. Nice to see. I headed to and sat at the bar to eat. There's a special lunch menu with ten dollar meals a bunch of them. Ordered from main menu. Two meat BBQ dinner. Lot's of BBQ meat choices including burnt ends. I went with brisket and 1/3 rack of slab ribs. Came with two sides and a huge chunk of fresh made cornbread. I choose red beans and rice and slaw.

Never having SBR I was expecting to be underwhelmed because we don't hear much about the place living within Chicago city limits. Gotta say this was one really good meal, excellent service too. Brisket had a bit of bark on top, wasn't dried out, medium tenderness, hint of smokiness. St Louis cut ribs were just right to me, had to tear meat from bone, more than a hint of smoke, good flavor. I chose to let them sauce both meats. Was just a dollop on both meats, not swimming in sauce. Price was 14.95, ice tea is a never ending glass, under 20 dollars for meal and tea, with tax. It's a whole lot of food for a 15 dollar price point compared to other BBQ joints around town. Bonus points for real china plates and heavy silverware and a linen napkin!

Just a few days ago I had a great 1/2 slab dinner at Honey 1 on Western Ave. It was good to try SBR within such a short time period and then come to this thread. Honey 1 yes is a different animal than SBR, but SBR hold it's own for a good BBQ meal.