Chicken question.

[Mooner]

Originally Posted by Bentley

I tried boneless and skinless when I frist started. It just seems that you get a perception started with the judges that, like Bigmista said, you are not able to cook chicken "right" if it does not have skin on and bone in. I was taught to score the meat as presented, period. If that is with skin on I judge it that way. I will say if a team presents a peice of chicken to me with skin on I am going to take a bite with the skin and if it is rubbery ( and it usually is) I score it down. That is the way it is presented. I think most judges just avoid the skin and judge the peice that way and I think that is wrong. I just can't convince my sis to try it skinless, she says not only will it bias the judges on apperance, the apperance will bias their opinion of the taste. We do appeciate the input, please keep them coming, I am going to get her on the site tonight and have her read your responces, they are very insightfull and helpfull!

Well, I would say that in a perfect world, skin on and bone in chicken is probably best and I am sure that some guys have found a way to get it perfect everytime. I have not heard that judges score down a skinless peice of chicken simply based on that. I know a guy who has won many a competition in chicken cooking it skinless. Remember, the categories are apperance, taste, and texture/tenderness. Appearance is the lowest scoring category of the three and this is the only area where a judge would be able to dock you points if he was biased skin-on. I must admit that chicken is tough only because of the skin. Some guys have separate cookers simply for chicken, but me, I only have one and all my meat goes on it so I can't risk everything else to get crispy chicken skin. It's always like chewing a peice of velcro so i just eliminate it. If I was a judge and I saw 6 perfectly golden brown, smokey, shiney peices of chicken in a turn in box, I think I would hesitate slightly before giving poor marks simply because it was skinless. You might make a trial run on a sunday night and see what happens and what your team thinks.

[Plowboy]

Remember that appearance is a VERY small part of the score. If that color comes with the flavor you want, you may be willing to give up roughly 1 total point for appearance for 12-15 points in taste.

[MoKanMeathead]

Originally Posted by cmcadams

When I took the class a year ago, we were told that smoked chicken has rubbery skin, so don't count down for that. I don't, as the skin isn't that big of a deal, though I do taste it.

Interesting...I was never told this in my class (several years ago). Since you can smoke chicken without rubbery skin I think I would probably judge it down because of that.

This piece probably did not have rubbery skin but could have been marked down for appearance and possible taste (IF it tasted burnt).

[Jeff_in_KC]

Regardless of what Guy said, I wouldn't turn that piece in if the skin didn't uniformly cover the whole piece. Sorry Steve! lol! Personally, I would expect it to be scored down for the skin shrinking down, especially if the other five or more pieces did cover more (not a consistent look). I do use 2 to 3 toothpicks per piece to hold the skin in place. Sometimes it tears free and shrinks anyway. Those pieces go in the scrap pile. call me picky I suppose.

As for the look of the skin in this particular piece, I would judge it as looking burnt and score it down. I've seen worse but this does look burnt to me. That being said, for chicken at home, I wouldn't hesitate to hit that!

[cmcadams]

Jeff, I don't call it a scrap pile.. I call it samples!

[jminion]

Originally Posted by cmcadams

When I took the class a year ago, we were told that smoked chicken has rubbery skin, so don't count down for that. I don't, as the skin isn't that big of a deal, though I do taste it.

On appearance only, that chicken could score much higher if it weren't black. It may taste great, but the appearance score would likely suffer.

Curt
I agree that chicken skin can be rubbery but how the cook deals with that is part of what judging. A good cook can smoke chicken, present it crispy or tender (bite through) and should be rewarded for it.

Jim

[BBQPETE]

I think the skin has so much taste,i hate to lose that. I would keep a eye on the chicken a little more and don't blacken it as much.

[beam boys bbq]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

Not a big thigh fan, bro. Unless they're on Rachael Ray!

say that again rachel ray !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have went to judge class

this pice lookes burned to me

it looks like the bbq sauce has an lot of sugar that caramalized
way to fast and then burned because of the time on the grill

try this cook the chicken and then sauce it in an cooler place on your smoker so it caramalized slower

just my thoughts
york

[Leeper]

I would judge that down a point or two on appearance for the burnt look. If the dark color was uniform on the skin I would assume it was ment to be darker and probably not mark down. I have however given 9s in taste for peices that I gave 5s in appearance for looking burnt.

[The_Kapn]

Originally Posted by Bentley

Frist let me say I have try to look at the rules and I think this is allowed, if not deleate it.

Actually, a very good question and discussion.
Thanks.
Moderator's note--I did delete some off-topic and off-color posts.

Here is my take on chicken skin.
Judges reward "excellence"--at least I hope we do.
Chicken or poultry skin at "smoking temps" is a culinary challenge.
It takes a really talented cook to get it done to some sort of "bite through" state.
When they do, I reward them.
If it is "rubbery"--well, anyone can do that.
If they leave the skin off--well, they don't get any points for excellence in chicken from me--sorry.

The pic does appear "burned"--probably too much sugar in the sauce or rub.
Easy to correct, if she wants to.

Just an opinion.

TIM