Muffin Pan Chicken Thighs??

[Balls Casten]

Is this natural enough for ya?

 

[Capn Kev]

Is this natural enough for ya?

Yeah, looks great, except for that big ol' purple vein looking me straight in my right eye :wink:

 

[Lake Dogs]

...
The judging should be based on what is presented, not what someone opinion is. This is almost as bad as saying, I don't like sweet glaze, so anything that comes across my table and is sweet will not get a good score.

I call BS! If you already have a preconceived notion about an item, what is the use..........

wallace

No need to defend. You're correct on all of this.

I judge appearance on one thing, whether it's appetizing and I'd like to take a bite. I can tell you, I've seen other things (other than chicken) take on the appearance of something that would make you puke to think of eating it (ie. I've seen MM's and other pork products presented to look like a mans penis, and other times it looks like a fresh steaming dog turd). Sorry, they didnt get 9's in appearance from me. If it looks like ****, then it does. I'm sure as hell not thinking to myself "hey, I want to scarf that down right now".

Chicken, you're right, it's sculpted all to hell n back, but most still look like some variation on/of chicken. Every once in a while you'll have them so perfect they no longer look like a food item at all. To me, it's not appetizing and again doesn't trigger that "Holy cow I want to eat that right now" response.

More often than not, rather than just blistering them with the true score I had in mind, I give them bonus/brownie points for the time and attention to detail, and usually give them like a 7, when my inclination was to be a score that represented "inedible".

And, in fnbish's example, I probably would've given those an 8, perhaps even a 9. To me they're not so **** sculpted that they look like something else; they still look like overly sculpted chicken balls to me. Like I said, I have seen them so perfect that it wouldnt have crossed my mind that they were food at all...


There's the other side of this. Would you want to be the judge who saw an actual dog turd come across the table that had been glistened with a little finishing sauce and placed ever-so-neatly in that perfectly sculpted bed of greens give it a 9 in appearance saying "Damn, I really wanted to take a bite of that turd"? I know, a bit over the top, but used to make a point. If it doesn't look like food, how on earth can you score it a favorable food appetizing score? You can't. You shouldn't, not even if it's the prettiest presentation of a turd you've ever seen (or christmas ornaments).

 

[BABYGOTBUTT]

Well, this is where I disagree with a lot of you folks. Other than drumsticks, I have yet to see chicken at a comp "look like a normal piece of chicken"!

Maybe I don't visit the same places others do, or grew up eating chicken like some, but I have not seen chicken thighs trimmed in any restaurant or backyard get-together as of yet.

The judging should be based on what is presented, not what someone opinion is. This is almost as bad as saying, I don't like sweet glaze, so anything that comes across my table and is sweet will not get a good score.

I call BS! If you already have a preconceived notion about an item, what is the use.......... Since when does most of the chicken that is turned in look like a hot-dog in a bun, or is square, look "natural"?

Heck, I really don't even like thighs, but rather would pick a wing or breast first for my personal personal preference. But I cannot go into a contest as a judge with that mindset. Otherwise, I am doing most people a disservice at thighs are the most predominant part of the chicken that is cooked.

To the original post, I have scored pretty good using muffin pan chicken. A few comps, I scored 9's all the way across for appearance. But for taste and tenderness, I screwed those things up (hence the lower scores in the category).

Ready to defend myself!!

wallace

Well said..I also use pans.....how does a loaf pan make chicken look more like chicken than a round pan? Why would you score down for one and not the other. I could at least understand if the judges scored down for using any type of pan but even the un-panned chicken doesn't look like chicken after trimming. This is part of the inconsistency in judging that should be addressed.

 

[Balls Casten]

Yeah, looks great, except for that big ol' purple vein looking me straight in my right eye :wink:

That's what I meant ... Natural untrimmed chicken

 

[sdbbq1234]

No need to defend. You're correct on all of this.

I judge appearance on one thing, whether it's appetizing and I'd like to take a bite. I can tell you, I've seen other things (other than chicken) take on the appearance of something that would make you puke to think of eating it (ie. I've seen MM's and other pork products presented to look like a mans penis, and other times it looks like a fresh steaming dog turd). Sorry, they didnt get 9's in appearance from me. If it looks like ****, then it does. I'm sure as hell not thinking to myself "hey, I want to scarf that down right now".

Chicken, you're right, it's sculpted all to hell n back, but most still look like some variation on/of chicken. Every once in a while you'll have them so perfect they no longer look like a food item at all. To me, it's not appetizing and again doesn't trigger that "Holy cow I want to eat that right now" response.

More often than not, rather than just blistering them with the true score I had in mind, I give them bonus/brownie points for the time and attention to detail, and usually give them like a 7, when my inclination was to be a score that represented "inedible".

And, in fnbish's example, I probably would've given those an 8, perhaps even a 9. To me they're not so **** sculpted that they look like something else; they still look like overly sculpted chicken balls to me. Like I said, I have seen them so perfect that it wouldnt have crossed my mind that they were food at all...


There's the other side of this. Would you want to be the judge who saw an actual dog turd come across the table that had been glistened with a little finishing sauce and placed ever-so-neatly in that perfectly sculpted bed of greens give it a 9 in appearance saying "Damn, I really wanted to take a bite of that turd"? I know, a bit over the top, but used to make a point. If it doesn't look like food, how on earth can you score it a favorable food appetizing score? You can't. You shouldn't, not even if it's the prettiest presentation of a turd you've ever seen (or christmas ornaments).

Dude, I laughed my rear-end off reading this!!! I so much agree.

Ok, but the comments about the dog turd and penis, well, I am going to really thinking about those words when we prepare the MM!!

"Damn, I really want to take a bite of that turd!" :mrgreen:

Thanks!

wallace

 

[Lake Dogs]

...
This is part of the inconsistency in judging that should be addressed.

Baby, I'm not sure that any sanctioning body can address this. The
reason is, IMHO, the single most SUBJECTIVE thing in cooking, whether competitions, at home, or in a restaurant, of any food type, is the appearance and what is and isn't appetizing to the individual. You cannot tell someone what is appetizing to them. What may be appetizing to you, I may find disgusting, and visa versa. It just IS.

I'm not saying we all disagree all the time. For the most part, we all agree down the line. The problem is when people want to draw outside of the lines. A few judges will penalize someone for drawing outside the lines; the better judge looks at it much simpler, and asks him/herself, do I want to eat that? Is it begging to be snarfed? There are degrees of yes and degrees of no (hence a score), but basically that's it.

I was at a GBA table judging a few weeks back and of the 5 judges 3 of us were almost gagging at how much like a turd one particular MM looked like, and the other 2 didnt see it. Honestly, it didnt look like BBQ. I wasnt watching, but a bystander came up later and was asking "what was wrong, most of you jumped back". Seriously, it was that vivid. Who was right; who was wrong? I would debate with you that nobody was wrong. It was what it was. 2 looked at it and it apparently said "eat me" to them, and 3 of us looked at it and wondered if we should bother putting any on our plate...

Only if we re-classify appearance and call it "neatness" or something. Yes, you can neatly arrange christmas balls and dog turds and money muscles and tiny balls of chicken, but you cant necessarily make all of them appetizing to everyone....

Funny thing, there have been a few (very few mind you) that werent as neat in appearance as many but the meat screamed EAT ME, NOW, RIGHT NOW, DO NOT WAIT, DO NOT HESITATE. And, to everyone, that factor is different. We're human <last I checked>.