Originally Posted by
CGRA
Not correct :
- 79 michelin restaurants in Paris and 75 in NY..... (i.e probably more in NY than in Paris factoring the size / number of people)
-
and 226 in Tokyo
-
and 99 in Kyoto
- 594 michelin restaurants in France vs 516 in Japan
These numbers clearly confirmed that Europe and especially France is "over represented"
Michelin includes restaurants in France, especially, and throughout all of (Western) Europe that are not in the big cities; outside of Europe, Michelin rarely includes restaurants not located in the big cities. Your data is correct, but I would argue the conclusion you draw is therefore seriously flawed.
About 494 of the 516 Michelin restaurants in Japan are located in the big cities of Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, and Hiroshima. About 98 of the 595 Michelin restaurants in France are located in the city of Paris and smaller "cities" of Lyon and Marseilles. (Even counting Lyon and Marseilles as big cities here seems laughable, but I'm including them to make my point even more obvious.)
The fact is that Michelin includes small town/village and resort location restaurants in France and in Europe as a whole--but does not do that in North America or Asia to even a remotely comparable degree. The only big exception might be the Napa Valley!
The net effect is that Michelin ignores whole regions of "countries" like the USA, Japan, etc. while including whole regions and small towns of France and most European countries. That pretty much makes it fairly easy to conclude that Michelin over-represents France and Europe. It also ignores whole continents like South America and Africa despite the obvious gourmet dining presence in both, which is an even greater reason to question Michelin when discussing the "best" restaurants in the world.
I used your source, by the way.
source :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ed_restaurants
IMHO Michelin guide is fair in France and rarely outside.
I would clarify to say the Michelin guide is exhaustive in France and rarely outside. Again, Michelin over-represents France and, to a lesser but still significant degree, all of Europe. The numbers speak for themselves...especially when you critically examine the numbers.
If Michelin ever fairly considered US cities like Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, Miami, Boston, Washington, Charleston, New Orleans, Seattle, etc, let alone the resort destinations like Carmel/Monterey, Santa Barbara, Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc, the USA likely would crush France and perhaps all of Europe.
If Michelin ever fairly considered countries like Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia, Canada, etc, the rest of the world might very well crush Europe--or at least make far more people aware that Europe isn't quite the center of the culinary universe as it pretends and craves to be.
Michelin includes off-the-beaten but tremendous restaurant locations like Rubano and San Sebastian and Modena, but somehow misses Lima, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Sao Paolo, Medoza, Bogota, Bangkok, Singapore, Cape Town, Los Angeles, Houston, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Anchorage (just kidding!), etc. It isn't because Michelin can't find amazing restaurants.
Like I said, Michelin is to fine dining like France is to wine: not quite the epicenter that it always craves to be.