It was a big weekend for football this past weekend (four games!), and if you're
into it, likely you went to a friend's house or you hosted a get-together yourself to watch a certain New England team
get rightfully stomped right out of the running. I went to a barbecue on Saturday and one of the most heated debates
that came up was not over which teams would end up facing each other in the Big Game, but about chicken
wings.
Which is better - the chicken wing or the drumette?
Obviously the drumette is better because it's much easier to hold, with the small end basically serving as a handle. Though which piece has more meat - I am willing to go scale to scale and say that the drumette probably has 50% more meat than the wimpy little wing - it is infinitely easier to eat the meat from the drumette. If you eat the wing, you either have to use two hands to tear the entire thing apart to get the minuscule meat from between the two bones, or you have to shove your tongue between the bones, push the meat through to the other side, then grab the meat with your teeth on the other side.
Such is the stimulating culinary discussion that occurs between plays.
1-16-2006 @6:51PM Hawk said... I hate sports. I love chicken wings. Love. I will eat buckets of them. During band practice, I used to order two whole dominos pizza boxes of them (back before they had the super steroid chicken ones they do now) and chow crazy.
The drumettes are more satisfying, but the wings are more fun to eat in that messy, PITA way.
Reply
1-16-2006 @9:25PM R said... The wing is better--more sauce to meat ratio means it can be spicier & it is usually juicier too.
Reply
1-17-2006 @2:29AM Dmnkly said... Please, Sarah... it's all about the wing.
1) Higher sauce to meat ratio.
2) Higher crispy skin to meat ratio.
3) Lower cartilage/gristle to meat ratio.
4) Eating method = bigger neanderthal factor... we're talking wings, here!
Reply