Foodie Rant: Our Rivalries, Ourselves

By Karl Klockars in Food on Nov 16, 2010 8:20PM

For the last few months, Chicago has seen its food landscape swarmed with outsiders. Groups of people have flocked to the city to decide once and for all who ranks higher, who is the finest overall, who is the best in the class, and just exactly who reigns supreme in certain fields of culinary excellence. I'm not talking about the Michelin Guide, though - everyone else in town can field that one.

I'm talking about the Travel Channel's "Food Wars" versus the Food Network's "Food Feuds." Two shows, two networks, two similar concepts, and two virtually identical trips to Al's Beef and Mr. Beef. What are the odds! Two crowds, two showdowns, two results. Too unnecessary, and unfortunately for a good chef like Michael Symon, too sadly unoriginal.

Rivalries are fun. They're excellent for good-natured arguments, as we've seen on this very site time and again. But the question is: do we ever need them to be answered? Especially by interlopers, be they from national cable networks or international tire companies. And do we have any right to be incensed by their decision?

After the jump, a couple clips, a request to the producers about "the stance," and more about why we care so much about sandwiches.

It was fine the first time when Chris Pacelli of Al's Beef explained "the stance" to Geoffrey Baer. It was understandable when Adam Richman needed an description. But if we ever have to endure another 30 seconds of valuable network airtime dedicated to how to eat an italian beef sandwich the exact same way as every other program in the last 2-3 years, well, there's a production company that's going to get a very stern letter indeed. If you can't figure out how to eat a sandwich, drippy though it may be, without soiling yourself, perhaps you shouldn't be on television.

"Food Wars" debuted in March with their inaugural Chicago beef-centric episode, and "Food Feuds" recently did the exact same thing. Both Symon and Camille Ford received instruction on how to lean forward and eat a beef. Both went to Al's and Mr. Beef to talk about how the sandwiches are made and the differences between the two in. Both put the beefs up head to head amongst a crowd of loyalists, to help decide once and for all whose beef was best. And in the end, both judgements were entirely meaningless.

The joy of the rivalry isn't to know definitively who is better. An "objective" take on whose food reigns supreme is completely unnecessary. The joy is simply that we have the opposing sides in which to have an opinion, that these places exist, and that we can make up our minds for ourselves. There will never be one true winner or loser, just preferences to be argued about until the end of time. And that's why preferences exist.

It can be frustrating to have to argue the no-ketchup rule or explain that Chicago pizza can be thin for the millionth time. But the other discussions more than make up for that tired ground, and they are inherently our discussions. One cannot simply fly into town, have a few bites of beef and try to decide who's the best. One has to immerse one's self in Chicago beef culture, in beef history, and know the beef landscape before beginning to try and make some sort of determination. This goes for all other cuisines, be they pizza, hot dogs, taquerias, Thai joints and all other destinations on the Chicago food landscape.

Which is why the two programs have come to stick in the same part of my craw as the Michelin Guides, because it's a very similar construct. People from elsewhere, coming to town to tell everyone else what's good. Is it nice to have the attention? Of course. Is it good for the businesses? Naturally. And yet, for all the hollering over the last days and weeks about who wins what and who likes who the best, it doesn't change what we and our palates already know.

Part of it is simply that we (as eaters, not as writers or reviewers) were here first. The other part is that it seems to, at least partially, discount the work of everyone else who's been doing the work for longer. Like, say, every other food writer in town, everyone on LTHForum and even everyone on (yeah, I'll say it) Yelp.

The bottom line: From the Michelin Stars down to the lowliest beef stand or hot dog joint, our rivalries are our own to be argued, but never decided. Our food universe is our own and is open to the entire world to be enjoyed, but to ask us to assume that network personalities and anonymous diners have more of a say in "what's best" than we do is to ask too much.

Oh, and who won in each show? We're not telling. It's far more fun - and more valid - to decide for yourself. (But: Dipped and hot. Everyone knows that's how to have a beef.)