I don't know about you, but I found the finale to be super-suspenseful. After 60,000 miles and nine countries, it came down to two great (female!) chefs.
Obviously this was the toughest challenge of all. Preparing a three-course meal for some of the top chefs in L.A. is an intimidating assignment for any chef. Both Avery and Liz did a great job and it was tough for all of us to have to make a choice. In the end, to paraphrase Wolfgang Puck, experience won over talent, even if it was by a narrow margin.
Congrats to Avery for winning the contest. And kudos to Liz and the other contestants for giving it their all and doing some great cooking along the way.
I had a fabulous time doing this show with my great friend Curtis Stone and a great production team. Thanks to all of you for watching! Send me your comments on Facebook and Twitter. See y'all soon!
Agree with the comments ... The judges had no real meaningful involvement in the show. The crowd chose the winning team. Alliances and strategy decided which chefs stayed. Cooking took second stage.
The judges didn't work with or interact with the contestants in a meaningful way. They had little to no influence, and could not reward or come down on behavior.
I was happy with the winner, but thought this was a happy accident, rather than the result of a good format. I believe that the judges should have been in a position to reward good behavior, good cooking, and professionalism. They should have been in charge of the dismal process.
The format instead encouraged cronyism, finger pointing , and gamesmanship. Good chefs were voted off early and it turned way too political.
Cooking shows should reward cooking first. Cooks shouldn't be encouraged to be greedy with the salt. Contestant should be encouraged to think about the strategy for their next dish, and less concerned about voting off their strongest rival.
Hated the section process. Mediocrity and strategy won over excellent cooking. Thank heavens Avery one....they only chef of integrity and talent of the final 3. Too bad because the travel part was excellent...but won't watch again if "survival of the least talent but most conniving" is the criteria for winning!
Thank gawd that a chef actually won. Liked the concept of world travel...hated the contestants rating one another. Results ensured that the least likely chefs were finalists...think about it...the finalist included the one most manipulative and lacking in integrity, a sous chef who was so meek and generally non-competitive that no one took her seriously, and, at last, one genuine chef. I can't believe you almost gave $150,000 to some of the least talented! Please don't do this "rate one another" concept again....Top Chef is popular for a reason...it rewards excellence, not conniving.
and she's a fan fave too!! I love cooking shows and I don't think there's anyone who is as kick-ass as Avery. Most (or all) of the ones with shows right now are amlost stereotype sugar and spice. We women have so much more spice in us!!!