I think Jonathan’s win was undeserving on 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing 

As a devoted fan of 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing, I couldn't help but wonder how the most recent season would turn out. Although there is no denying Jonathan Sawyer's culinary prowess, I felt that he shouldn't have won the title because of a few aspects of his performance and the way the competition was organized.

I was cheering for cooks who demonstrated development, flexibility, and a readiness to change under duress throughout the entire season. Jonathan was reliable, yet he played it too safe. I was rarely shocked by his meals, and I anticipated more than simply expertly prepared comfort food in a competition that tested endurance and inventiveness over 24 challenges. Other chefs, particularly the underdogs, occasionally outperformed him with daring flavors and creative presentations that didn't seem to receive the credit they merited.

The fact that the finale of 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing seemed more like a celebration of reputation than performance was what disturbed me the most. While some were clearly pushing their boundaries, Jonathan's cool confidence came across more as coasting through. It caused me to wonder if the judges were actually judging each challenge on its own merits or if they were just following the storyline of naming a well-known person. Despite my admiration for Jonathan, this victory didn't seem well-deserved.

Was Jonathan Sawyer’s win on 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing Season 2 overrated?

In a competition as demanding and intense as 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing, I anticipate that the victor will not only make it through but will also make a lasting impression. From my perspective, Jonathan Sawyer's victory seemed to be more a product of his notoriety than his actual performance. His pasta game was always good, so he did have his moments, but overall, I believe he played it much too safe for someone trying to be the "last chef standing."

Jonathan hardly left his comfort zone during the difficulties. He stayed with tried-and-true recipes while other chefs were experimenting with flavors and plating techniques. I thought those chefs, like Mei or Esther, who always came up with new ideas and changed with each round, showed a greater understanding of the true purpose of this competition. Jonathan's food was certainly tasty, but "good" didn't feel good enough in a show that was based on risk and evolution.

Even though he occasionally made mistakes in timing and execution, the criticism he got was surprisingly forgiving. That forbearance, in my opinion, tainted the judgment. 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing winner appeared to be spared when other chefs were fired for small infractions. As a spectator, especially one who had anxiously followed the entire series, it was disappointing since it seemed that continuity was more important than originality or development.

In a contest that aimed to honor perseverance, creativity, and culinary courage, I believe the winner ought to have been someone who genuinely possessed all three qualities. Even though Jonathan was the most professional chef in the room, passion isn't always the same as polish. Additionally, I thought that other contenders were displaying considerably more enthusiasm this season than his meals ever have.

Trending

Follow Food Network on Instagram to get more updates about 24 in 24: Last Chef Standing.

×

Was this article helpful?

Thank You for feedback