Then chuckeye is the way to go, ask the meat guy at your grocer.

They tend to be smaller cuts than ribeye, but for the money they are very close in quality, my dad turned me onto them and i love'em.

I shall try this... I've used them as a poor-man's flank steak in the past, I'll just see what a tenderizer and some butter can do when I treat it like a steak..

If you cook'em right they don't need a tenderizer, but I do marinade them occasionally.

Ribeyes are overrated. They're too fatty. A good filet mignon is the way to go, and I'd pick a strip over a ribeye as well.

I'm talking one of these tenderizers:

http://mermaidsofthelake.com/photos/...Tenderizer.jpg

So no to this form of tenderizing?

When I do the Poor-Man's flank steak I don't use it, but I cut it on something like a 60-degree bias, and I use this for 20 minutes to marinade it (and it's pretty darn good):

http://digital.hammacher.com/Items/7..._1000x1000.jpg

And goddam you... Now I'm hungry!!!

Apparently we are in the "Jack Sprat" minority here. I'm with you on a filet or strip or go crazy and get a porterhouse.

I do like chuck eye, but I just really disagree with you on the bolded. They're nowhere near the quality of a ribeye, IYAM. They're pretty good on flavor (they do need some help), but they're not tender at all.

I just don't want anyone to expect one thing and get something else... I do like the chuck eye cut, though. If I want steak and don't want to spend much money, I'll almost always buy a chuck eye.

I'll not argue much with someone that prefers a strip steak, T-bone, or porterhouse. But filet just doesn't have much flavor. It needs a lot of help. It's very tender, yes. But it can't stand up on its own in flavor like ribeye or strips can. That's why filet is wrapped in bacon, covered in sauce, or used in a au poivre preparation (covered in cracked peppercorns AND sauce).

I guess you can if you want, but I never use a manual tenderizer on steaks.

I have plenty of other chances to beat my meat :D

I just hate to take a bite and get a mouthful of fat, or fat mixed with meat. It adds a lot of stress to my dining experience to not know what's in that next bite. The filet has plenty of flavor, in my opinion, and the fact that it supports such a broad array of accessory flavors like bacon or crab or whatever is only a plus. But one of its biggest advantages is that it brings consistency to my meal. I'm never going to take a bad bite of filet.

Do you eat with your eyes closed?

And for me, it's not that the filet "supports" those flavors... it's that it needs accessories to be standout.

Anyway, it's your steak. If you want to eat something that costs more and tastes worse, that's your prerogative. ;)

Being totally serious, I won't turn down a filet. There's just several other cuts I'd order before that, and a few other entrees entirely. But if that's what's offered, I'll be happy.

Filet isn't bad. When I want steak, I wanna taste beef.

Ribeye provides that.

I can't be expected to inspect every bite. That's why the food production industry is for. I'm busy at the table buttering my potato and drinking my Pibb Extra and chatting and figuring out what I'm going to have for dessert. My meat entree shouldn't be requiring my attention other than cutting and chewing.

I found the problem. Your taste buds are clearly ****ed.