Smashing on griddle vs. pre-smashing

[MillerTime]

So I just came across the J. Wimpy burger recipe, which sounds fantastic, so I'm going to try it this week. (http://amazingribs.com/recipes/hambu...r_burgers.html)

One question came to mind that wasn't addressed, unless I just totally missed it... why not just smash the burgers cold to pre-form the thin patty - even if it is just before they go on the griddle - and just drop them on the griddle like that? What would be the difference between that and smashing them once they hit the griddle? Would they dry out more in the fridge or something?

[tbob4]

I found this for you: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/...g-burgers.html

[Richard P]

interesting article and informative. Thanks

[johnsteen]

good article, thanks

[tbob4]

Richard P and johnsteen - you are both welcome. I often use a round bacon press to make "thin burgers". It was my G-Ma's old trick - didn't know the science about it until you asked the question and it made me curious.

[MillerTime]

Funny you listed that, because I just read that very article last night. Great article indeed! The only direct comparison was the following:

"In my testing, four-ounce burgers that started as round pucks and were smashed down to a half-inch thickness any time before 30 seconds still lost a little over 20 percent of their weight while cooking. This was comparable to four-ounce burgers that were formed into 1/2-inch disks and cooked with no smashing at all. Both burgers tasted quite juicy, while the smashed burger had better flavor (obviously!)."

But I'm still missing something here, b/c if they both lost the same weight (thereby retaining the same amount of juice), and they both were juicy, then how is it that one "obviously" has better flavor than the other?

Obviously experimentation will be fun with this, but I'm just curious b/c pre-smashing just seems like it would be a lot easier, but it wasn't the go-to method for either article.

[EdF]

More surface area exposed directly to the hot pan.

[emil.glatz]

I'm a fan of no smash: lots of nice pockets to hold juices that pour all over and make a mess. Bourdain disagrees .

[Spinaker]

I love the smash burger because its fun and I hate having to unhook my jaw when I eat a burger. And I love that smell and sound when the grease hits the griddle! I would rather have two thin patties, than one big thick one. Some thick patties tend to "baseball" on me. Then I GOTTA SMASH EM' !

[Lowjiber]

I smash 'em if cooking on a flattop, but 'pre-smash' if cooking on a grill.

[grezs]

Ditto here.

[RonB]

MillerTime - I think that smashing on the grill forces more meat into contact with the surface of the hot pan. And that meat will stick thus allowing more meat to brown.

Now I do have two questions:

1- How about using a grill press? Will that keep enough meat in contact with the grill to get the great flavor?

2- Does more surface area in contact with the pan compensate for the lost charcoal flavor?

3- (OK - I'm cheating with this third question. ) Why not just cook the burger over screaming hot coals, (or GrillGrates)?

Obviously I need to conduct extensive tests very soon...

[Lowjiber]

If you're gonna use a grill press, make sure it's hot.

[MillerTime]

I too will experiment to see for myself - gotta have an excuse for more burgers!

But just to rehash, the question I was asking wasn't to smash or not to smash - the patty in my scenario would be smashed flat either way, so the same amount of meat should be making contact with the hot griddle either way. My question was regarding WHEN to smash - early on before refrigerating, after pulling out of the fridge but before hitting the griddle, or right when it hits the griddle.

It seems like more rush and more stress (but still not much at all) to do it right when it hits the griddle b/c you have a short window before juices start coming out. But on the other hand that seems to be the suggestion for smash burgers and nobody suggests to do it beforehand. Was just curious why not? My guess is that it won't make a difference, at least between the 2nd and 3rd options, but I vow to find out!

[Dr ROK]

The only smashed burgers I'v made were done using Kenji's method. No more than 2 oz balls for each patty smashed onto a hot grill as soon as you throw them on. This forces the meat to make good contact and starts the maillard reaction over the entire surface. They are also so thin that they cook in about 30 seconds or so. I don't know if you could smash them that thin before throwing them on the griddle and still have them stay together. Definitely let us know how your experimentation goes.

[MillerTime]

I don't know if you could smash them that thin before throwing them on the griddle and still have them stay together.

Ahh... now there's a thought. Will do some side-by-sides and let ya know.

[lonnie mac]

I have smashed a patty or two on the griddle for sure. I have my reasons for smashing on the hot plate. But other than that I have to say that I never "smash" my patties otherwise. When I make my patties ahead of time, and it don't matter how long ahead of time, it is made VERY gently. I like a bit looser pack, this way there is no bulging what so ever when grilling. I do love a good smash. Some old timer working a hot plate years ago would put the cold ball on the griddle. Let it cook just enough to where all that beef love was pooled around the contact area, then smash all that cold meat into it. Dang it's good!

[lonnie mac]

You should follow my Upside-Down Wimpy Burger method! Then we will see who buys the rings!

https://pitmaster.amazingribs.com/forum/the-pit-mastery-program/hamburgers/218014-upside-down-wimpy-burger

[MillerTime]

Dang y'all are making me hungry... and I've already had dinner!

[Lowjiber]

That's pretty cool. I hate mustard too. LOL

[MillerTime]

As a follow-up, I did them last night - fantastic! Experiment showed that Dr ROK was correct - pre-smashing on a plate out of the fridge didn't get them quite as flat as smashing on a hot griddle, which was much more fun anyway. Seemed like they stuck to the hot surface a bit more and thus were able to expand better, while the plate method tended to either split apart more or bounce back some when releasing. Both ended up great and are definitely doable, but the hot griddle won the day.

Now an unexpected finding was the fact that my drip n griddle isn't perfectly flat across the bottom, and as a result the very slight air gap between it and my flipped over grillgrates (gasser) prevented it from getting up to the 350 temps that are good for searing. It was plenty hot to cook on, but no great sear marks until I removed them and put them directly on the grillgrates themselves. It seemed to stall out around 270 or so even when the grates were showing 450 (IR thermometer,, lid open the whole time). This shouldn't be a problem over coals though, as the radiant heat should be more even over that of the conduction from grillgrates with an open lid. No worries though b/c the upside-down grates worked like a champ!

But seeing as how the DnG keeps all those juices around and would be good for this, I'll experiment around more with this setup to see if a different approach or longer heating time would work.

[Steve R.]

Well, crap. Just when I thought I had all the accessories I really wanted, I'm sold on getting a DnG now.

[DWCowles]

The Arteflame will work great too.