Was not happy with Hosea winning. I would have loved for Carla to get it all; Hosea should be so thankful that he got that lucky.

Hosea is my least favorite contestant. His cooking talents are inconsistent, his personality is lacking, and I over all just don't like him. I am not overly fond of Stephan either, however, he has a soft side that we don't often get to see. Perhaps Carla did not deserve to win the BIG prize but I think that she is much more representative of some of the really classy chefs on TV like Emeril, Paula Deen, Bobby Flay, and many others.

To be perfectly honest I am not thrilled with Tom either. He preens and struts too much and acts as if he is the grand master of ALL cooks in the world. I think that his ego gets in the way of his decision making on many ocasions.

Will I watch the show next season. Unknown at this time. It has been a favorite for five years but this time I may decide that I have had enough. I don't feel that many of the chefs chosen for this competition measured up to the task. Some were frankly poor and I could do better in my home kitchen. Jeff and Jamie are exceptions to that statement. And Fabio is great too.

Hosea was my least favorite contestant. When it was all over I thought maybe this show has jumped the shark. Flat and dismal ending.

Almost stopped watching after Fabio was eliminated actually.

Just another example of the producers of Top Chef not really understanding why it's such a good show.

They took the Project Runway model and didn't understand what made it work.

When Top Chef became a colossal success in its first season, they also didn't understand what about it was freaking awesome.

1) Contestants who NEED the win are more awesome than contestants who WANT the win. In Project Runway (and season 1 of Top Chef) no one owns their own businesses. They're maybe not struggling, but they're untapped talent looking for a chance to burst onto the scene. Lately almost EVERY chef has been a chef/owner of their own restaurant or business. Look at the season 3 winner of Project Runway; he had his own business already and no one really rooted for him. On the other hand you had Michael Knight and Laura Bennett both wanting to make it big and needing this push. Who was more compelling?

Season one of Top Chef was compelling in large part because everyone needed the money more than some random "title" or nod of approval from full-of-himself papa bear Tom. The producers of the show are doing a pretty bad job (no offense to some of the awesome cheftestants who have been on in recent seasons) of picking people who should be on the show. If you own your own restaurant, you should be putting yourself on the map by inviting new reviews and being innovative in your restaurant. If you're working your way up the ladder and need the dollars to start what you know will be an amazing powerhouse in the culinary world, you should come to Top Chef.

2) There's no reason to "check in" unless you're going to offer advice. From the beginning Tom essentially didn't want to be Tim Gunn, so he kept his advice to himself. In many cases the chefs are offering him up their ideas in the kitchen hoping to see whether he approves or not; apparently no one's figured out there's nothing he loves more than tasting your dreams just before you burn them all and humiliate yourself later. They should either have a mentor or Tom should stay out of the kitchen. I think Chef Tom's genuinely not sure why people are convinced he's the perpetrator of multiple conspiracies; the first and best reason is that he is sadistic and satisfies his need for human suffering by smiling to encourage trainwrecks, then shooting people at the judges' table once they crawl out of the wreckage.

3) The reason Nina Garcia and Michael Kors can be complete divas is because they're both well-known and respected gay men in the fashion industry. Chef Tom is not these things. He needs to dial down his arrogance (no Tom, you are not a "young chef" as you would have had us believe in Last Supper. No Tom, you are not a superstar of the culinary world. You're a superstar of the Bravo TV reality world.) One of the recurring themes of the competition (though less-so in recent seasons) is being a chef is more than being a good cook. It's about being a leader, having a great attitude, inspiring those around you through work and personality. Remember WHEN HAROLD LITERALLY WON BECAUSE HE WAS MORE LIKED AND HAD A BETTER ATTITUDE THAN TIFFANY? Gosh! The real debate here was between Stefan and Carla (again, neither NEEDED the win since they both own their own businesses) and even then it becomes a tougher call as Stefan's always been supportive in stew rooms and with a few exceptions keeps everyone smiling. Just not by having a stupid goofy accent and cooking not so well like Fabio.

4) This "judge in the now" crap that Tom and/or the producers have been pushing is ruining everything. You know what? Arianne, Jamie, and Jeff would have been much farther along if they cared about past performance. And they deserved to be there longer. Even if they don't change the way they judge every challenge, the final challenge should necessarily be a culmination of each chef's efforts. Imagine if Leah had made it to the end. She probably would have won for the same reasons Hosea did. Not because she's an amazing cook, an inspiring presence, or the most innovative and artful thinker in the kitchen...but because someone always messed up just a little more than her. Consistently bad performance (or even just middling performance) is rewarded in the competition, and these finals prove that it's an awful system. PS Tom, we all saw your hypocrisy when you didn't send Stefan home right before the semi-finals. Give us a little credit.

5) The challenges, in large part, used to be way crazier. Yeah, the Diet Dr. Pepper (tm) No-Sugar Sweets challenge was kind of rough, but who remembers the psychotic vending machine challenge, or the gas station challenge? It's not really comparable to the canned goods challenge. It was one thing when you actually had to make a judgment call between using monkey brains and giraffe testicles for your quickfire, leading into an elimination challenge where you had to cook a vegan version of a beef-themed classic dish. Now the challenges seem less about creative chefs and more about good cooks.

If you want to know why Arianne got so far, it's because she's a great cook. Gone were the challenges where people were eliminated for not being innovative enough in their approach to an ingredient or dish. Again with Runway: the crazier the challenge, the more spectacular the results. I don't think "take these farm-fresh ingredients and cook us something good" really taxes the chefs the way "here's a bag of cheetos and a snickers bar" did. This show's premise used to center around who was the most INNOVATIVE chef, not the best cook. It was about the next star of the culinary world, not the next star for TV. That's why it demolished Food Network Star.

6) The judge selection needs to make more sense. At first I thought it was that the judges were getting too famous (and that might still be the case), but there's something here I can't quite put my finger on. Having chefs (most people) haven't heard of - who are actually amazing chefs - judge was something that made the first few seasons of Top Chef amazing. You're getting the culinary equivalent of a thesis defense every table, and that is awesome to watch. The problem is a lot of super-famous chefs and personalities (coughRocco) don't really cook as much, or are more arrogant than they are critical. It's one thing when you're getting an honest peer-ish review from a respected chef, but when you have some dude with an Italian restaurant telling some other dude with an Italian restaurant How You're Totally Doing It Wrong, it comes off more like Top Douche. So for instance, if you can't find a good Superbowl-related judge for that hot mess of a challenge, stay with the theme of all-stars and bring back Harold as the guest judge, or Leeane or Tiffany. Bring back someone memorable and awesome rather than some guy. If the challenge isn't about French food, don't use a French judge.

The insane Thanksgiving challenge (which I guess Leeane had a lot to do with?) was kind of an exception to the rule this season. Don't get me wrong--I completely agree with you.

I just think that particular challenge failed because any one aspect of the challenge would have been enough. Adhering to the runner would have been difficult because they mentioned vegan/vegetarian options and their likes/dislikes. I think that would have been enough of a constraint. Alternately having the killing fields full of toaster ovens and microwaves would have been fine. But yeah, putting them all together was asinine and too much.

I think the reason season 3 was so boring (another point with which I whole-heartedly agree) was because all of the cheftestants were so nice. They'd clearly all watched the first two seasons and refused to earn a bad rep through editing. Don't get me wrong; the show has never been about personal drama. But there some something delicious about the way Dave would melt down or Tiffany would burn holes through people with her laser eyes. Likewise, even though they were both complete douches, it was amusing enough to watch Ilan and Count Chocula make their little barbs about foams and paprika. It was also nice to see Betty be our collective ids and bark fire and bees at people who were being over-the-top.

I could be off-base here, but from reading what Colicchio has written himself and interviewed, it seems like the direction in which the show's headed was mostly his doing (though he doesn't explicitly say so). And while it's nice that he's building a legacy or what the hell ever he should consider that the gay version of NBC that features three flavors of "real housewives" isn't the best place for him to try to establish himself as the next Julia Child.

Bring back the crazy culinary acrobatics, and bring back chefs who don't have their own restaurants. They're the ones who are going to be more creative and work the hardest, because this is a chance to gain something they don't have, rather than a chance to make up for their already-evident lack of imagination that's made their restaurant not already world-renowned.

I agree with the posts here and in the forum that Hosea won simply because he got lucky in the final challenge. He was able to 1st pick his sous chef and protein and thats an unfair advantage. He never appeared to be an innovative or interesting chef and, like everyone says, his dishes seemed middle of the road. Also, he seems shady (see hooking up with Leah while having a girlfriend and taking all the caviar and foie gras) and while Stefan seemed arrogant he had the skills to back it up and he cared about the other cheftestants. I was rooting for Carla but knew she was doomed when she said she could not focus. Then I wanted Stefan to win (all season he was one of the most talented) but instead an uninspiring, boring, douchebag wins. I was totally underwhelmed and felt the same way in S2 when Ilan won. I don't think I'm watching next season.

Carla won. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Ease up on Gordon Ramsay...I lurve him.

OK bear with my crazy theory please and help me out a little. Clearly the picking of the sous-chefs was one of the biggest problems with this episode. Now, I'm not a math genius, but can somebody please tell me if i'm right in thinking this:

Carla, as a prize for having won the first challenge in the finale, does not get to pick her sous-chef first, rather, she gets to pick a knife that has a 1, 2, or 3 for the order of obtaining sous-chefs. So, she has a 33.333% chance of picking the best number,1.
If she DOES pick a 1, then the other chefs, who did NOT win the previous week's challenge, have a 50% chance of picking a 2, which isn't so bad, or a 3 which is the worst. I'd rather have a 50% chance of picking a mediocre 2 than a 33% chance of picking a 2, although it would be balanced by having a 33% chance of picking a 1.
BUT if Carla picks a 2 or a 3, then the remaining, non-winning chefs would have a 50% chance of picking the best number, 1.

So wasn't Carla's "prize" of drawing the first randomly-numbered knife rather than picking the first sous-chef, more of a punishment than a prize?

Well, I like Hosea, and I'm glad he won.

I see some serious lack of logic in this clearly biased review. You can see major flaws in every chef on that show if you'd like. It doesn't take much effort. Stefan was a pompous jerk and Carla was spacey.

That's right, Carla annoyed me. Yeah, I said it. I saw her cook some atrocious dishes, and I cannot believe that not trusting yourself is better than simply not having much experience. The fact that she did it again in the finale should not be an excuse to resent Hosea.

I never saw an episode where Hosea was that close to being cut. The blogs of the judges certainly never seemed to indicate a truly close call. He may have screwed up a fish dish, but he also made some good ones. If you hate him for the Leah thing, then just call a spade a spade and say you don't like him. But his dishes got him through the playoffs, and he won the Super Bowl.

I think his dishes had as much imagination as most on the show, and Carla deserved to go home far more often that Hosea did before her impressive streak at the end.

Seriously, how easy do people think it is to cook venison? Hosea simply made the best meal in the last show, and that's what mattered. That's what it took to win. Why expend so much time and energy hating him for it?

I'm not sure what was worse this season: Hosea winning or the EDITING of him. Seriously, editors -- you know that this guy is at least in your final 3 when you start putting the show together. Why on earth do you show the Leah showmance? Do you really think that's going to make people root for him?! It's not even going to make him someone people "love to hate" because cheating is such a hotbutton issue. Edit OUT the showmance (heck, Project Runway did last year!) and just show him as the plucky American trying to take on the Europeans (toning down the xenophobic comments wouldn't have hurt either).

If there was a How Not To Edit a Reality Winner 101, this season of "Top Chef" passed with flying colors. So many poor decisions that really colored viewers' perceptions of the winner.

I liked Hosea at first, but he got on my last nerve--not because of the Leah thing so much. The bigger sin, in my mind, was when he basically stood back and let Ariane FAIL with the meat; and didn't he fail with the fish a few times, too, even though that's supposedly his specialty? I would not mind working with either Carla or Stefan, but Hosea would not be a good person to work with. The other thing about Stefan is that he recognized how to pitch in, as did Carla, and he did so; the points above about having cheftestants that don't already have their own businesses is worthy of discussion, but these guys--and Fabio, for that matter--know what it takes.

However, my biggest complaint with the show, overall, is that this isn't anywhere near how food gets developed. I was only in pastry-land (in a top bakery, to be precise), but the process is similar. Someone has an idea. The person makes the item. Everyone tastes it and comments and the person incorporates the comments and does it again. It's an iterative process. THAT would make for interesting challenges--because, for example, Jeff would never incorporate anyone's comments, I'm guessing, because he thinks he's all that and a bag of hand-fried chips and three kinds of special sauce on the side (but those guys only made nachos and salsa so he should totally get more credit for making more things). That, I think, would make the whole thing more interesting, and closer to what being a good chef really means--in the actual chef world, I mean.

First and foremost, I refuse to give Leah and Hosea a combined name. Blargh.

That being said, I would never argue that Hosea was the greatest chef on the show. Just that he played the game the best. I do not "stomp to claim" anything regarding greatest talent. I think he made some good dishes. He was never the worst, then made the best meal when it counted. I understand the Hosea backlash, but I simply disagree with it on a rational level.

My feeling that Hosea is hot has nothing to do with it. Really.

There were plenty of times that I thought Leah should've gone home. The fact that she stayed after restaurant wars? Appalling. But I never felt Hosea was the absolute worst.

I was also appalled that Jamie went home so early. I expected her in the top 3 all along. She was that good, I think. It just didn't work out in the context of the game.

Also, I let my perception of these episodes be influenced by the judges' blogs. Why? Because the editing is so misleading. Hosea did share some of his ingredients with Stefan, but the "first dibs" thing applies in every challenge. Why is Hosea a jerk when he does it? Also, there are many previews/outtakes I've seen that edit in interviews from other times just to make it seem that Hosea was being insulting when actually there was a joke. Tons of things are taken out of context, including the edits of the judging discussions. I feel like I can use the blogs as a way to weight my opinions of the episode. Sometimes it clarifies matters, sometimes I still disagree (Jamie leaving), but on the whole I am given the impression that Hosea deserved to be there, if for no other reason than on an episode-to-episode basis he never really deserved to leave. And his final dinner deserved to win. Therefore... Top Chef.

Perhaps I am skewed by being a hunter and loving venison. It is not easy to prepare, so it's ridiculous that people claim he was taking the easy route by not making dessert. If I have a choice between venison and dessert, I'm taking the venison. It was just a smart decision on his part. His meal deserved to win, regardless of the cumulative performances over the season. If they took cumulative performance into account, I would argue differently. But that's not the game, so... I'll stick with Hosea. *shrug*

I'm glad I ended up reading this blog b/c you all articulated the reasons why I loved Stefan so much when I wasn't really able to. People I know kept comparing him to Marcel and Steven from season 1, but I honestly found Stefan endearing. And Hosea WAS a douche (I don't normally use that word, but it's stuck in my head after reading all of these posts, lol). It was incredible - he either had a "man crush" on Stefan or he just reverted back to elementary school - it seemed like everything he did was just to spite Stefan. And I'm sorry, but he WAS mediocre. Trutfully, I'm can't really recall any stellar dish he made during the course of the show. Not one. What's funny is, it looked like the editors were trying to portray Stefan as the bastard this season, but I never really got that from him. Cocky, yes? But he melted my heart when he was so sweet to Carla at the end.

All I can say is, this was the first time in the history of the show I have been so repulsed by who won. When Sam got booted in season (2?), I was sad but I kept watching. But when they announced Hosea as the winner, I immediately flipped the channel b/c I couldn't stand to watch him gloat. And I was sure that was what he was going to do - "gloat" not "celebrate". First time ever for me, but I honestly am not sure I am coming back next season either. (And as an aside, I am glad to hear that some people also felt like Tom really thinks his s*** smells sweeter than most. It was more obvious this season than in the others.)

Just disappointed all around!

The fish dish from the final to which I was referring was his non-appetizer first course, which was sashimi.

i like ramsey, too - and would love to see hosea try to compete on hell's kitchen. heh.

People dislike Hosea more than Carla because she is a kind-hearted, sweet, eccentric (perhaps annoying) woman and he is a mean-assed, bullying, horny asshole.

Aside from his purposely letting Ariane fail while spending THE WHOLE TIME COOKING ROASTED POTATOES (probably in a bid to save his "beloved" Leah) he clinched it for me by snotting to Carla, "Well, at least I cooked my own food" in the finals. The poor woman was crying, for God's sake, and you had a shot to win, why be a dickwad? Because that is his true character, that's why.

As for his "skills"--he totally coattailed on his sous chef, who made the food look (and probably taste) better than Hosea's food ever had before. He was a hack, pure and simple, who successfully coattailed any number of superior chefs to "win" challenges.

The best chefs on the show were Stefan, Jamie, Jeff, Fabio (though limited), and possibly Carla.

Most of us are unconvinced of his skill because he's batting about .500 for fish. If that's his specialty - and what he does every day - then he should demolish any fish dish he touches. So, in the context of Top Chef he might be a hack...especially given his courageous decision to let Arianne completely handle jobs she'd never done, and his courageous decision to prove he is a versatile chef by doing dessert in the finale.

I think that Hosea can't possibly be a hack in the context of Top Chef, because... he won. :-) He might have faltered on some fish dishes, but he also excelled at some other dishes, too. I do not understand why I should only look at his fish. Michael Knight was a horrible designer for evening wear, but he made awesome sportswear. Not knowing where your real talent lies is not the same as not having talent at all. Hosea has less experience than the others, which I think is a much more valid excuse for faltering than a lack of confidence that constantly undermines your performance.

If Stefan's dessert had been good, then he would've won. I wouldn't have minded if Stefan won, either. But I can't rightfully discredit someone for not making a dessert when (1) it wasn't required and (2) the final dish was well-received.

Meh. Just a difference of opinion. Not a big deal.

Here's the thing: This was one of the few times Stefan had a strictly mediocre service. Hosea always had a mediocre service. Even his finale was mediocre. Yet for some reason it was held against Stefan -- because he was so much better? -- than it was against Hosea. There is no way Hosea deserved to win Top Chef.

Side note - I had one of the best meals ever at a Gordon Ramsey restaurant. If you can back it up, who cares about the craziness?

Hosea is top chef what in the.. Slap-up :)

Hosea is top chef what in the.. Very nice :)

great post.Never knew this, appreciate it for letting me know.

Nice post. I learn something more challenging on different blogs everyday. It will always be stimulating to read content from other writers and practice a little something from their store. I’d prefer to use some with the content on my blog whether you don’t mind. Natually I’ll give you a link on your web blog. Thanks for sharing.