Top Chef - S8E11 Power Rankings

Hard to believe I only have two more of these things to do.

As mentioned last week, I've never watched Paula Deen. I only know her by reputation. And while a little showy, I figure anybody who gets that excited about sucking shrimp heads can't be all bad. A fun quickfire, and too bad it was marred by oyster controversy and Antonia's error.

I actually don't mind the catering challenges, so long as the chefs have room to breathe creatively, which was certainly the case here. I'd prefer more manageable numbers, which may have contributed to Dale's ouster, but I don't groan about high-end catering challenges like some. It certainly didn't keep some of the chefs from coming up with compelling food.

Okay, then... let's make this week official. Not much excitement this week. Dale goes home, and everybody else moves up.

The power rankings are not purely a prediction of who is most likely to win, or an assessment of last episode's dishes, or a reflection of the contestants' historical performance, but rather a nebulous amalgam of all three, combined with a little bit of gut feeling, to provide a relative measure of current awesomeness.

Wins

Top

Bottom

1 Richard Quickfires 3 6 1 Last Week: 2 Eliminations 3 6 1 Dale's exit and a strong week put Richard back in the driver's seat, though he still has some close competition. His quickfire was a textbook example of why it's so frustrating to see non-traditional techniques dismissed out of hand. Sure, everybody wants to poke fun at yet another use of liquid nitrogen. But he used it as a tool to create something unusual and delicious that couldn't have been achieved by traditional means. MG is great as long as it isn't gratuitous, and this wasn't.

2 Antonia Quickfires 1 3 2 Last Week: 3 Eliminations 1 6 4 Antonia continues to outplay the stats, with another winning dish that doesn't show up on the scoreboard. Both her fried avocado and shrimp and her crab cake were mostly straightforward from a flavor standpoint, but again, she's doing more to elevate her dishes than she was in season four. And if you work under the assumption that plating a second quickfire dish wouldn't have kept her out of the top, she's a DQ short of seven straight top appearances, which is a truly remarkable streak. And she's looked so confident along the way, seeming to toss of top dishes almost effortlessly. At this point, I'd consider losing her as much of a disappointment as losing Richard.

3 Carla Quickfires 0 2 4 Last Week: 4 Eliminations 3 6 3 We've seen strong competitors stumble into the finals before, and this season it's Carla's turn. With Mike having a good week, a drop below him almost seems warranted, but generally speaking I'll value some highs and lows over consistently shooting for the middle. If she can hang in there for one more week, I expect Carla will be well-prepared for the finals. So we won't beat her up any more than I'm sure she's already beaten up herself.

4 Mike Quickfires 2 4 3 Last Week: 5 Eliminations 0 3 2 Chefs steal. Borrow, honor, amend, adjust, personalize, riff on, whatever. Like any art, truly original ideas are very few and very far between, and the best ones propagate. Jean-Georges Vongerichten isn't collecting royalties for every molten chocolate cake out there (nor would he want his name on most of them). But to me, there's a difference between seeing something on another chef's menu and doing your take on it, and ganking a very distinctive idea that was just shown to you that morning and using it in a competition against the guy you just lifted it from before he even has a chance to get it out of his notebook. That's sleazy in any context, culinary or otherwise. Of course Mike had to execute it, and though I joked about wondering whose stat column should get the win, I wouldn't take it away from him even if we knew for a fact that he wouldn't have won without the idea. And it didn't figure into his ranking. But it's still really, really low.

5 Tiffany Quickfires 0 0 5 Last Week: 6 Eliminations 0 3 6 The fact that Tiffany's still here, winless, has started up talk again of how some sort of cumulative scoring would make Top Chef a better show. Of course, that's not going to happen. I just can't imagine that the elves would ever consider a complete retooling of the format they've followed for eight seasons now. But let's pretend for a moment that they'd entertain the idea. Speaking only for myself, while I'm open to the idea, I don't think I've seen a compelling case that it would make for a better show. For starters, there's the notion that it would be a truer test of who really is a "Top Chef". But what is a "Top Chef" anyway? Ask ten fans to define it in detail and you'll most likely get ten different answers. Chefs don't exist on a continuum whereupon each can be accurately and objectively scored one above the other, even if shows like this attempt to build a framework to do so. Subjective tastes, disparate styles, varying abilities... if they each cooked us ten dishes and we could then look at their cumulative work and pick a winner, it would still be a highly subjective process. So by changing the judging criteria, I don't think you're necessarily more likely to reward a better chef, just a different kind of chef. And the same could be said of any number of changes you could make to the format. Yeah, it sucks when somebody goes home early. But the judges get enough grief for their decisions without at least being able to fall back on simply calling the best and worst dishes of the day as they see them. Would some of the alternatives I've seen proposed create a finale that's more likely to involve chefs I'd like to see there? Probably. But I'm not convinced that that wouldn't be at the expense of however many episodes it takes to get there. In the end, as some have said, it's a game. Which isn't meant to belittle it. But if you take a group of chefs and put them on Iron Chef, then send them to the Bocuse d'Or, then put them on Top Chef, you might very well end up with three different winners. Top Chef isn't Iron Chef, and it isn't the Bocuse d'Or. It's its own competition with its own emphases, and I don't think its goal should necessarily be to reward an ideal that isn't even clearly defined. It's good television. I'd argue that the occasional untimely departure is part of what makes it good television. And as long as the chefs are given enough freedom and resources to turn out some great food, I'm of the opinion that "don't make the worst dish today or you go home" is as good a judging system as any other. End of rant.

6 Dale Quickfires 4 5 3 Last Week: 1 Eliminations 3 6 3 And I say all of this as somebody who is a big Dale fan and really wanted to see him in the finale. But as I've said before, I'm glad the judges stuck to their guns and sent the worst dish home. I'm just sad that dish was Dale's. Frankly, I'm going to miss the competitive fire as much as I'm going to miss the food. He wanted to win, badly, and wasn't afraid to say it and act like it. But while I think the rest of season eight will miss that energy, I'm glad we had it for as long as we did.

WARNING : MINOR EPISODE TWELVE SPOILERS AHEAD

The quickfire looks like a total throwaway that's barely a step up from the infamous vending machine challenge. The less said about it the better. And the previews aren't showing us much of anything about the elimination, except that the chefs have a real kitchen to work with, which is good.

I'm assuming we're following the usual format... one more elimination to the finals!

Discuss!

Comments

[Steve F.]

Because viewers expect to have the best have a shot at the trophy, one option is to allow the judges, beginning a few episodes before the semi-final so that the ECs can do their work for most of the season, to have the discretion to provide a one-time save prior to the semi-final to a chef at the head of the pack - the rankings calculated from a combination of EC wins, places and bottoms. (Personally, I don't see the QFs as a good measure.)

This means that a chef on a downward spiral can still be eliminated before the finale. But the chef would get one pass if he or she has a cumulative score ranked in the top three spots and the judges believe that the chef deserves an additional shot.

However, I also believe that this option would have been useful only this season. In past seasons, I don't think it would have been necessary.

[Anon man]

Regarding Richard and LN. I would like to point out that Richard's "constant" use of LN has only been in the QFs. He seems to use the QFs as his own 30 minute laboratory. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But, I think he's building ideas that he can use later on in the finals. If he's doing this intentionally, its very, very smart.

I have a prediction based on my own hunch about what happens tonight, but I'll keep it to myself, except to say, I have this nagging feeling Tiffany makes it to the finals.

[aaalex]

anon man: ouch! i hope you're wrong about tiffany, but it would make this a very memorable season, for sure. poor woman, i think even she feels bewildered by the fact of her persistence, here.

dominic: i've never agreed with one of your rants more. the desire to change judging standards, even if you understand exactly what's behind the desire, is a desire for a different show. top chef is what it is. the sports analogy, for me, is with soccer: a contingent of aficionados wants goal line technology tp correct refereeing errors (like, say, thierry henry's hand ball against the irish, last year) another contingent believes the game should flow and, besides, the whinging about bad decisions is what makes for the most amusement. (unless, of course, you're in south america where they murder referees for getting calls wrong ... murdering joelle robuchon for his assessment of a flan would certainly make this show more lively, though ...) i'm among those who believe the collective suffering one undergoea when calls go against one's team is, in fact, humanizing, teaches one to accept fate and loss. also, the fact that we still talk about lisa fernandes as often as about any of the winning chefs is indicative of part of where the entertainment lies on top chef. (actually, i wonder if we don't talk about lisa fernandes MORE than any single other chef. her name should be a verb. like ... "i think tiffany's gonna get fernandezed this year.")

i do feel, though, that i wish the chefs were given more chances to do their best: ideal circumstances more often than gimmicky set-ups to make them fail. i'm not saying turn this into a competition that takes place over six months and rest the chefs every week. i'd just like to have a chance to see what tiffany's good at. i know she's a great chef and that her performance on this show is not indicative of her ultimate worth. and i'd like it if top chef allowed her talent to come through with one or two more ECs that were LESS gimmicky. on the other hand, despite my HUGE disappointment at angelo's elimination, i like the show as it is.

[jw]

Well said on the Mike-oyster controversy.

Also on the rant. I have finally realized (after 7.5 seasons, I may be a little slow) that it is totally a game. And the "best chef," by whatever means you measure that, is not necessarily the "Top Chef." (In my opinion, you only have to look at seasons 5 and 7 to see that.) Besides culinary skill and creativity, there are so many other factors - endurance, health, gamesmanship, and plain old luck, just to name a few. My analogy would be - if you played Monopoly with Donald Trump, would you expect him to win every time? Or if you played Risk with Colin Powell? Sure, they may bring an element of expertise to the game, but sometimes they will have a bad roll of the dice and end up on Broadway with a hotel.

I'll take your example one step farther - if you had three seasons of Top Chef with the same chefs, I would bet you would have a different winner each time. And that's part of what's fun about it.

[paula]

Anon man: I share that suspicion. Brace yourselves, people.

[aaalex]

a post-script to independent george ...

IG:
price of my mac $1,500
price of my isp $35/month
oobleck to impress 2 year old niece: frickin' priceless!!

i can't thank you enough, IG, for how cool i'm gonna look for the next few weeks!

[marjorie]

Dom said "I'd argue that the occasional untimely departure is part of what makes it good television."

Agreed. It's still a game show. Trying to turn it into a legitimate science is a fool's game, won't make for gripping TV, AND won't really solve the perpetual (and fun) arguments about who REALLY is the best chef.

To coin a phrase, "Eet's Top Chef, not Top Statistician!"

[Anon Man]

@aaalex and paula, I have my reasons for my hunch. Right or wrong, I'll explain them after the episode.

@aaalex, Without drifting too afield here, I think your soccer analogy isn't quite right. The goal line technology is about demonstrable facts. The goal is in, or it isn't. Its like going over time on the challenge or forgetting two plates. The handball was more of a judgment call. (I'll admit to being a fan of the Forza Azzurri (of course), so being especially sensitive to goal line technology after the debacle in the last WC.)

I'm sure the EC will be fine. It will be something like cook a nice dish or two for 10-40 people with a reasonable restriction. (Something like cook the last meal request or take over a steakhouse kitchen, as we've seen in past years.)

[Polybus]

Good analysis and I agree.

This is such a great forum for discussion. Thanks, Dom!

[Jeff]

Dom, I definitely agree that it's a game and there has to be some sort of consistent judging standards. There will be some I like (clueless chef will lose over a knowledgebly mistaken chef) and some I don't (inedible always losing) and some I feel could be tweaked (week-to-week judging). I like the idea of week to week judging but I feel that it's slightly idealistic.

It reminds me of economic modeling. It only works if people don't act like people ([many] economic models only work if people are always making the correct financial decisions). Top Chef assumes that the cheftestants will always shoot for the top and execute to the best of their ability. However, many chef's solely work on sticking around (not always to their knowledge) and many make human mistakes.

So while this criteria may work when you have multiple chefs executing on a consistently proficient level (Season 6, and to a certain extend Seasons 1, 3, and 4). However, we've seen on more than one season a week to week criteria inspires mediocrity. It would have prevented someone like Tiffani, a person with no wins and nothing particularly interesting setting her apart, from drifting to the top. So how to remedy that.

In Project Runway/American Idol their criteria is "do we want to see more". However, I feel this creates bias toward strong frontrunners allowing egregious errors to pass on in favor of seeing what they have to offer. In Top Chef, it might have allowed Tiffani F to still be here because she consistently (failing or not) creates food that is interesting and I want to see more of. So how to remedy this.

I think a combination of both is near perfect. My fav show with judging was Scream Queens on VH1 (10 girls vying for a part in a horror movie)

They really did, from week to week, think about what the girls were accomplishing cumulatively with an emphasis on what that particular week's challenge added to their entire work-in-progress. So it takes that weeks performance into account while reflecting was this week indicative of what we have to see in totality. Was this week's mistake, given their past performances, something they have the skill overcome. They even state during judging that if they were eliminating based on work from that week a certain girl would have gone home.

In the end, all of the ones still there had won challenges and were the best of what the cast had to offer. In my Top Chef analogy Tiffani F would have still gone home because she although she was interesting, she was not growing (at least during the show) and was regularly making mistakes that have consistently landed her in the bottom, in addition to making an error and not realizing what was wrong (Top Chef criteria that remains). Although she may be talented, this season took her for a loop and the combined judging criteria would have prevented her coasting forward.

That judging criteria inspired the best work from all of the girls consistently (because if you do badly during one week you will likely go home) and didn't allow favorites to slip by unscathed (they said at judging that if they notice you slacking or don't notice any growth, you will go home).

[aaalex]

anon man: yeah, i know. and every country has its "we were robbed" moment. last WC england had a perfectly good goal disallowed against germany. on the other hand, in 1961, the english had a goal allowed against germany that might not have crossed the line. (the germans now call those "english goals")

my point is, though, that we remember moments of "unfairness" as vividly as moments of glory. and although it's possible to imagine soccer as POTENTIALLY immaculate - ie. we can potentially get to a point where all referee's decisions made are "right" - we have to do so by subtracting the human, by getting rid of the human element involved in reffing. (btw: if you introduce goal line technology, italy loses as often as it gains, i'd bet.)

the point is not that "reffing" on top chef and reffing soccer are the same, it's that debatable/contestable decisions in both games are part of the what makes the game thrilling to those who care - though not to those who care too much, obviously ...

[mncharm]

Dom, as usual, well said w/r/t the Mike situation and to the rant.

[aaalex]

anon man: in re-reading your post, a further thought ... advocates of goal-line technology are convinced that cameras will solve all questions, but there will still be some calls that are debatable: the 1961 english goal against german is hard to call, even after watching it over and over, and there'll be moments like that, wherever you put the camera.

(also, the italians were lousy - in 2010 - until their last game when they played like they meant it for the first time in south africa. and they were a revelation! if they had played the entire game against slovakia as they did the final 10 minutes, they would have won easily. in fact, even mentioning goal line technology, in reference to italy that WC, is a way of avoiding the proper question: what the hell were the italians thinking for most of that tournament? they couldn't even beat new zealand, for god's sake!)

[Anon Man]

@aaalex, right, but my point is that a set rule that has physical limits "like ball must cross line" or "you must finish the dish in one hour" can be measured. Sure technology has its limits, and if a chef drops one last dusting of fennel pollen from on high a time expires, is that cheating? So, I separate that from this is too salty or this was a handball because they aren't really things you can definitively prove. (Hand of God, anyone?)

Don't get me started (too late) about my Azzurri. They sucked. I want to forget the entire tournament. (Well, except the US-UK game because I still call my British BIL "Greenfingers" because he's so klutzy.) (

[aaalex]

anon man: yeah, okay. i pretty much agree. but with a greater love, on my part, for things that go wrong and cause the kind of anguish that forces you to put things in perspective. if games have any virtues beyond time wasting, one of them is that games are ways of dealing with life's imperfections in a relatively innocent venue at relatively little emotional cost. (a test for our sense of right and wrong and, so, a moral workout.)

also: i support the english and i still feel bad for robert green, the poor bastard.

[Independent George]

aaalex - can you imagine the fun on TC if they made oobleck in the stew room? I never get tired of the stuff. Just be sure to follow the directions and NOT pour it down the drain, otherwise you'll be adding a $2,000 plumbing job to your price list.

[Nikki L]

I really don't like the comparison between Lisa F and Tiffany. I know they are both lasting much longer than they reasonably should, but Lisa honestly thought she deserved to get as far as she did. She absolutely thought there was no reason she should have ever been in the bottom and that the finals were rightfully hers. Tiffany on the other hand has been expecting to go home for two straight weeks now. She knows she hasn't won anything and that she's out of her league. It's not her fault they're keeping her here.

[JJ]

At the risk of redundancy, I will say once again (and for the last time): I see no reason why the producers couldn't have experimented with another format for an All-Stars season. After all, they did so for Top Chef Masters. Since Bravo seems hellbound to keep Top Chef on the air virtually 24/7, why shouldn't they use the opportunity of an All-Stars season to try something new? It would have given the Quickfires a different kind of urgency (to gain immunity). They could have also offered chefs the option of either taken a cash prize or immunity, and so on. Meanwhile, the Elimination challenges could have allowed chefs to accumulate points in a number of different ways, perhaps even offering bonus points to the most creative dish, etc. I can think of all kinds of ways that a point system could have added interest and variety to what has now just become another season of Top Chef.

[Caulder]

I hate the idea of week to week judging. The essence of drama is that you don't know the outcome, but there is a very real potential for disappointing loss. Cumulative judging would destroy TC absolutely. If there was ZERO chance of Antonia, Carla, or Richard going home tonight, would there be a point of watching anything but the finals? You don't give the Pats the Superbowl ring because they've won 16 in a row, fortunately for every no Pat football fan on earth you make them play the game. I would argue that if this concept of cumulative rankings were more pervasive you wouldn't have a Richard, or a Voltaggio, or a Michael Jordan etc. It's genius that we as a society don't bestow glory on people who rest on their laurels, not until they're retired and have shown us a lifetime of work worthy of the honor. It would be a far worse show for people with early momentum to be able to skate by for a while, or even into the finals, than it would for a chef like this season's Tiffany to win it all. The chance that a winless chef who's perpetually circling the drain could still somehow win it all creates amazing tension. I would be very disappointed for Tiffany to win it all given her performance so far, but it wouldn't be her fault, or the show's fault, it would be Richard, Antonia, Carla, and even Mike's fault, but it would be preferable to Richard coasting in with an over-salted frozen dog turd just because we know he'd crush her 99 times out of 100.

[Canuck]

Longtime (kinda) reader, first-time commenter. I gotta say I'm mostly in agreement with your comment on cumulative judging. I must say, it hurts to see people like Dale and Angelo go because of one misstep following a run of mostly brilliance, while people like Tiffany (who I loved in Season 7, but just seems tired in general this season) keep slipping by. If Richard goes out this week, heaven forbid, I may not have the resolve to keep going on with the show. But it's undeniable that the "anything can happen" factor makes for better television. If you just eliminated people based on the past few weeks, you'd end up with Hell's Kitchen, whose "surprise" eliminations are eliminating the weakest chef who wasn't thrown under the bus. The fact that anything can happen means there's a reason to keep tuning in. Of course a finale of Richard, Angelo and Dale would have been awesome, but that just didn't happen. If it had been predestined, there would've been no reason to tune in other than to see the inventive dishes people come up with (which haven't exactly been too amazing until this past week). Bottom line is the format works for a TV competition.

/end rant

[Shay J]

Why would you make it needlessly complicated and interject a whole new level of bias into the equation? Week-to-week judging ensures that everyone knows that they must make the best dish and if they don't, they lose. Play-offs is the best sports analogy. Not a specific sport, but the concept of it. A better record means that you are doing good and you are the favorite, but a poor play or taking off or lapses in judgement absolutely means you should lose if the other team is being better or, at least, not as bad as you.

So maybe Tiffany deserves to go home because she hasn't won as consistently or at all as Dale, but that is neither here nor there with the question of: is this dish you prepared for us today better than the other dish prepared for us today? What? Are we gonna declare do-over? If they lose again? Do over again? This isn't best of 3.

Previous performance absolutely should not matter because in any kind of contest being the "best" or "better" is in that moment. If you fail here and now, then you were not the best or better. Dale was not better than Tiffany that day. That, to me, is the fairest way to judge a subjective competition.

[Canuck]

To keep up with the sports-related analogies: I think the best comparison for cumulative judging would be the BCS vs. March Madness. With March Madness, you know upsets can and will happen, which makes things extremely exciting and leaves you guessing (which TV builds ratings off of). With the BCS, meanwhile, you can telegraph who will compete in the championship with several weeks remaining. It saps a certain degree of the fun out of it. And nobody likes the BCS, unless your pockets are being filled by it.

[Amanda P.]

In light of all of the sports and playoff references, I must quote Sportscenter (Kenny Mayne, I think): "Games aren't played on paper, they're played inside your television set."

As people have pointed out, Top Chef is a game, and it's being played inside our television sets for our amusement (and the contestants' money). Much as we'd like to change the game, at this point, I'm just going to enjoy the episode. It's certainly better than my NCAA team is doing this year, even if Tiffany wins it all!

[foodiewannabe]

The only reason Bravo/Elves would have to tweak the format is if ratings fall below audience estimates that rates for commercials were predicated on.(am a retired broadcast media buyer) which result in make goods for said client (freebies). Episode 10 garnered 2.6 million viewers, a season high; Episode 1, I believe was 1.6 million. The last 4 episodes should do well but if the season falls short of projections (with all the All Star hype)there might be some adjustments made.
In my view, they need to create more excitement with the EC challenges - with 1 or 2 exceptions, the EC's this season were not very interesting (thought the same thing in season 6 but that was mitigated by some extraordinary contestants.

[bryanD]

I just read that Top Chef Masters will copy the original Top Chef format in toto, from competing en mass, QF and EC, Restaurant Wars, and no cumulative scoring. The producers promise drama.

Top Chef R.I.P.? This might explain Dennis the Menace working the Top Chef soundboard during season 6 as well as Tom's and Bourdain's minds being Somewhere else this year.

[ally]

I just went back to check, and in the infamous seasons 5 and 7, the Hosea and Kevin went into the finals with one elimination and one quickfire win each. Lisa F went into the finals with one elimination win, no quickfires. Tiffany going to the finals with no wins in either category would be a new low.

[verycleanteeth]

I'm glad the judges have been consistent in applying the standard: worst dish goes home.

I'm also of the opinion that cumulative judging would make for a yawn fest.

One alternative is to do what they did on Master Chef Australia with "Immunity Pins". They would have a quickfire like challenge once a week and the winner would face off against a pro chef for the chance to win a one-time use pin they could trade in to avoid an elimination.

Of course this would require a bit more time in each episode to provide for the extra challenge (which I wouldn't mind personally as the show always feels a bit rushed to me).

In the end though I think the Top Chef format is fine as it is. It's unfortunate we've had to watch two of the best chefs go home back to back, but without the possibility of upsets the show would be a lot more boring. I could do with less gimmicky challenges this late in the game though.

[noob]

Long time, first time.

Just to chime in on the whole elimination discussion. For a fix, I'd go with a double elimination format. Keep everything the same as right now, but then have the bottom 3-4 battle it out in an 'elimination quickfire'. I'm guessing that you would need to add a minimum of 15 minutes to each episode, but I don't think that's an issue since we've seen them do longer episodes before (and I for one would welcome MORE cooking).

You keep the drama AND you keep the better chefs around barring high-sigma events.

[verycleanteeth]

I like noob's idea.

noob for Top Chef producer!

[jh]

@noob- interesting idea, but here's a hypothetical question to your hypothetical proposal.

Let's say every week, the bottom 2 chefs face off in sudden death, loser goes home. A chef is in the bottom every week has no QC or EC wins, but continues to win in sudden death and eventually makes it to the finals.

Imagine of Tiffany had to cook an extra dish for every one of her bottom finishes and won. Would there still be complaints about the format (of course, cause there are always complainers), or would the audience be more receptive that the chef "earned" his/her place in the finals since s/he had to at cook their way out of it?

[bryanD]

"Tiffany going to the finals with no wins in either category would be a new low."----ally

The EC tonight is Express your heritage through food. Since the judges hate-hate-hate Tiffany's version of homestyle, and since Tiffany's cooking consciousness is about an inch deep and a half-inch wide, Tiffany will actually deserve to stay if she somehow avoids disaster.

Likewise, Mike not effing his Eye-talian all up to hell.

Carla and Antonia should cruise. Will Blais claim spiritual kinship with Star Trek and make an edible tribble? Richard: NOT safe.

[noob]

I'd like to think that in that situation (hypo^2=meta? whoa) they would have earned it, but that is just me. And that would really be an extreme-sigma event. The whole discussion was sparked off by Angelo AND Dale going off in successive weeks. Neither one of those events is surprising by itself, but back to back it's enough to make a fan pause and wonder.

[Anon Man]

"Will Blais claim spiritual kinship with Star Trek and make an edible tribble?"

This is the best line in this thread.

[HF]

I'm hating these sports analogies (damn you, Bourdain, you started this!) as they're all so weak. Baseball, football, basketball, soccer... team sports with strict rules that rarely change and a scoreboard to look at the whole time. What's that sport where 18 individual competitors go at it for 2 weeks straight, 2 heats a day with a player being eliminated every heat, sometimes head to head and sometimes split into teams, in a different stadium every heat, sometimes different equipment, not knowing all the rules until 30 minutes before go time, and then the (sometimes sober) judges have to huddle and argue to reach a decision?

[Anon Man]

@HF: Figure Skating?

[matthew]

LOL @ figure skating. Nice!

[nic]

another reason why i don't mind tiffany staying around as much is that she is not makeing terrible dishes, just dishes that are miss represented or just not that grea but not terrible

[HF]

@Anon Man, too clever, LMAO! Next QF, flambé while on ice skates...

[Genevieve]

Richard's heritage (at least some of it) is British. A modern take on roast beef and Yorkshire pudding?

[ally]

Can Tiffany cook her way out of a wet paper bag?

Can Tiffany beat anyone with a wet noodle?

...

Sorry I couldn't help myself.

[jh]

Off topic, but I saw the new cast of TCM. I'm hoping Hugh Acheson does well because 5&10 is the only restaurant on the list I have frequented. The oysters rockefeller and egg benedict appetizers were amazing.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41875538/ns/today-entertainment/

[dc]

A nice feel good episode. Lots of comfort food. Tom must've really enjoyed.

Tiffany holding her own on such a strong EC showing in the pre-final reminds us her food can hit the judges square in their sweet spot. It reminds me in her season she ran hot with 6 straight EC wins and top group showings until she was abruptly eliminated right before the final 4.

She's a tremendous long shot to win, but I'm happy she showed the food that got her invited to join TCAS, and it propelled her to the finals.