[lsc]

I can't quite put my finger on why, but I find this down-voted comment to be quite amusing.

I mean, sure, it's content-free, but much like the article, it's content-free in a way that I find entertaining; it doesn't at all leave me with the unpleasant feelings I get after reading a puff-piece about money or business and then reading some trite truism in the comments.

why is that? is it that while I do enjoy BBQ, I don't read about it much, so it seems fresh when writing of the same quality about money or business would seem stale?

[mistermann]

It's because BBQ is a cult, if they applied the same blind testing to BBQ as they've done with wine and wine "experts" in some cases the illusion would be burst.

You can "low and slow" ribs in a smoker for 12 hours and get a beautiful outcome, or you can do them in a regular oven or even better a pressure cooker and finish in a BBQ or smoker and get the same result. You may be able to produce a superior result in a "legit" setup, but how do you deliver the consistency of that at a reasonable price with unpredictable demand? You can't.

[brownbat]

> if they applied the same blind testing to BBQ

They do, that's how the major BBQ competitions are judged.

They even have techniques to prevent bias or judges recognizing the source of the meat (overlapping panels, hundreds of entrants, randomized category assignment).

When I was a judge, you'd get a lot of 7 and 8s. Those were competition ready samples, definitely great BBQ. But there was a power curve. One or two entrants would hit a 9 or 10, and they were obvious to every judge at the table.

The crews that win are usually strong contenders several years in a row. Luck's going to have a role, like with anything, but the real contenders are there for a reason.

[lsc]

See, an article about how BBQ competitions are judged... that would be pretty interesting.