Board 8 > Can it be considered a Sloppy Joe without the bun?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I eat Sloppy Joe's all the time and I grew up eating them because my mom made them all the time.

So good.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I'll have some spaghettis

excuse me I would like exactly one spaghettus please

---

I move for spaghettus to become the new unit of measurement for the United States.
---

If I was invited over for sloppy joes, what I'd expect would be a little do-it-yourself line with plates and bowls available, a bowl of the sauce, a bag of buns next to it, some chopped onion, shredded cheese, etc. Buns obviously being optional

HashtagSEP posted...

Though if you're just eating a patty by itself, you typically wouldn't tell people "Oh, I'm eating a hamburger." You'd say something like "I'm eating a hamburger patty." It's natural to come up with a way to describe it since you know people will picture it wrong otherwise.

That makes sense. I was thinking of it because yesterday I went to M Burger and the lady in front of me ordered a burger with no cheese, no sauce, no bun, and a lettuce wrap.

(If Leonhart has sloppy joe filling in a lettuce wrap, is that a sloppy joe? Also, what's your stance on bread bowls?)
---

Lettuce wrap is still a sloppy joe imho

it may in fact be the sloppiest joe imaginable
---

turbopuns3 posted...

If I was invited over for sloppy joes, what I'd expect would be a little do-it-yourself line with plates and bowls available, a bowl of the sauce, a bag of buns next to it, some chopped onion, shredded cheese, etc. Buns obviously being optional

Yeah same, this is completely normal except of course no bowls that would be insane
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

Lettuce wrap is still a sloppy joe imho

it may in fact be the sloppiest joe imaginable

While unorthodox, this is actually does qualify
---

Wraps are just a variant of sandwich. Breast bowls though are for soup, so you'd be eating a meat stew, basically chili but with sloppy joe meat.

---

Sloppy Joe in a bread bowl sounds pretty amazing.
---

Gatarix posted...

(If Leonhart has sloppy joe filling in a lettuce wrap, is that a sloppy joe? Also, what's your stance on bread bowls?)

The first I'd say is a sloppy joe, since wraps still capture the same essence as a sandwich

Bread bowl I would not, though.
---

What about Sloppy Joe on a hot dog bun?
---

Well absolutely

Though if that hot dog bun also contains a hot dog then it becomes a coney
---

Is a hot dog a sandwich then?
---

Leonhart4 posted...

Is a hot dog a sandwich then?

100%

It's the exact same structure as a sub

---

Much like sappy occasion cards and human beings, it's what's on the inside that counts. I'm of the opinion that we need to have universal terminology that applies, no matter how the person chooses to dine.

When serving myself, I have filled the hamburger bun with 1/3 of the meat typically served. Is it then a Tidy Joseph? No, it's still a sloppy joe.

The sauce, meat, etc. all tastes distinctly like a sloppy joe. I come from the midwest, so I'm not familiar with coneys. Internet results are returning 'sloppy hot dog'. This article from 1992 does confirm that "On close inspection of the recipe, some will recognize the ingredients of the sloppy Joe." https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-10-01-9203290499-story.html

Most people aren't going to tack on 'meat' or 'sandwich' - the lack of distinction in usage means that OP is in fact eating a sloppy joe.

---

Llarian posted...

Most people aren't going to tack on 'meat' or 'sandwich' - the lack of distinction in usage means that OP is in fact eating a sloppy joe.

No, the lack of distinction is due to sandwich being implied, since it is the default.

---

Well, I don't think anyone is arguing that the sandwich is not the default, just whether it can be acceptable to call just the sauce in a bowl sloppy joe. I'm certainly not at least.
---

Like to continue on the tangent of the spaghetti I would consider the default for spaghetti to use the tomato based sauce.

But if someone gives me some fried up spaghetti with olive oil and parmesan, no sauce, it's still spaghetti.
---

Incidentally, what's the difference between a Sloppy Joe and chili on a bun where you live? They're both the same thing here.

Leonhart4 posted...

I eat Sloppy Joe's all the time and I grew up eating them because my mom made them all the time.

Once again, you're factually wrong. You eat "Sloppy Joes" all the time, not "Sloppy Joe's."
---

Mac Arrowny posted...

Incidentally, what's the difference between Sloppy Joe and chili on a bun?

The sauce. You might make the meat differently, too.
---

Lopen posted...

Like to continue on the tangent of the spaghetti I would consider the default for spaghetti to use the tomato based sauce.

But if someone gives me some fried up spaghetti with olive oil and parmesan, no sauce, it's still spaghetti.

That's different though. Spaghetti is clearly the name of the noodle. Hell, tomatoes aren't even native to Europe so spaghetti the pasta predates the "default" we think of.

"Sloppy joe" is the name of a sandwich like "Reuben" or "po boy." If I ask you for a po boy and you give me a bunch of shrimp in a bowl I'll look at you like you're an insane person.

---

Proper sloppy joe sauce has a slight sweetness to it is the big thing. It's somewhere in between a tomato based sauce and a chili based sauce in terms of taste to dumb it down a lot because I can't really describe tastes well.

Ironically I don't actually like sloppy joes much despite talking about them so much and would prefer chili on a bun.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

If I ask you for a po boy and you give me a bunch of shrimp in a bowl I'll look at you like you're an insane person.

This falls apart because a po boy is only notable due to being seafood on a sandwich. You're not really doing anything new, just putting something that's on a sandwich that isn't usually on a sandwich.

Sloppy joe sauce it its own unique blend and distinctive as the sloppy joe sauce even removed from the confines of a sandwich.
---

Lopen posted...

This falls apart because a po boy is only notable due to being seafood on a sandwich. You're not really doing anything new, just putting something that's on a sandwich that isn't usually on a sandwich.

Sloppy joe sauce it its own unique blend and distinctive as the sloppy joe sauce even removed from the confines of a sandwich.

Please understand that you are now arguing that no sandwich can have a unique name unless it contains some unique ingredient. There's nothing "unique" about reubens or hamburgers either.

Do not go down this road, this way lies madness.

---

a po boy doesnt even need seafood
---

Like, let me extend this bizarre argument to its logical conclusion.

The "unique" element of a Big Mac is the special sauce. Which is just a variant of 1000 Island Dressing or whatever but let's ignore that. That means, since the essence of the Big Mac is the unique sauce, adding it to ANY FOOD makes it a Big Mac. Worse, eating the sauce in a bowl is a Big Mac.

Madness.

---

Big Mac in a bowl doesn't sound too bad actually

I mean you wouldn't just be eating the sauce anyway
---

They can have unique names without unique ingredients they just lose their uniqueness if placed in a bowl in a way that sloppy joes do not

The bowl argument only applies if you're putting something distinctive in the bowl. Like a BLT is just bacon lettuce and tomato so the only notable aspect of it is you're throwing it on a sandwich. The ingredients have no inherent blending. They're just distinct flavors that go well together.

That doesn't make it not a distinctive sandwich, but it drives home that the identity is tied to the fact that it must exist on a sandwich.

Sloppy joe is kinda like, I dunno, egg salad. You can put egg salad on a sandwich and it's popular. Let's imagine a hypothetical world where egg salad wasn't called egg salad but a Tenacious Gobunger, and it was typically given on a sandwich. In this hypothetical world if I wanted my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl, it'd still more or less taste similar to it on a bun. People wouldn't say my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl ain't Tenacious Gobunger. (well no, they probably would at 80% clip, but they shouldn't)

Ultimately the only argument for Sloppy Joe requiring a bun is that's the first and most popular use of the meat sauce, but we're dealing in cans here-- can I have sloppy joe in a bowl and still identify it as such? Absolutely I can. Does it mean I should expect that a neutral party isn't going to assume I want a bun with it? Well of course not. But I can request it in a bowl without it being completely absurd.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

Big Mac in a bowl doesn't sound too bad actually

I mean you wouldn't just be eating the sauce anyway

That's literally what you're doing, it's just a meat sauce

---

Meat sauce and meat

Big Mac in a bread bowl let's do that too
---

Have you had a Big Mac before
---

Lopen posted...

The bowl argument only applies if you're putting something distinctive in the bowl. Like a BLT is just bacon lettuce and tomato so the only notable aspect of it is you're throwing it on a sandwich. The ingredients have no inherent blending. They're just distinct flavors that go well together.

That doesn't make it not a distinctive sandwich, but it drives home that the identity is tied to the fact that it must exist on a sandwich.

Sloppy joe is kinda like, I dunno, egg salad. You can put egg salad on a sandwich and it's popular. Let's imagine a hypothetical world where egg salad wasn't called egg salad but a Tenacious Gobunger, and it was typically given on a sandwich. In this hypothetical world if I wanted my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl, it'd still more or less taste similar to it on a bun. People wouldn't say my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl ain't Tenacious Gobunger.

You're arguing a BLT is only considered a sandwich because of the consensus belief that it is a sandwich. The ONLY difference in your sloppy joe argument is that you disagree with the consensus. In this hypothetical world where the consensus way to consume egg salad is a sandwich called the Tenacious Gobunger, and rarely is it enjoyed in non-sandwich form, yes, people would think you are weird for deviating from the consensus and eating a bowl of Tenacious Goburnger filling.

---

Like that big mac argument only works if you typically have your big macs with burger, lettuce, tomato, onions, and whatever else on the burger held. Like if it was the secret sauce on a bun, then putting just the sauce in a bowl would be the same as putting a big mac in a bowl. But the sauce is just one part of the puzzle. BLT is a harmony of still ultimately distinctive ingredients, just as the big mac is. Sloppy joe is a mixture of ingredients that you can't separate piecemeal, much like egg salad becomes.

Like it's not that the only distinctive part of the sloppy joe is the sloppy joe sauce. It's the only part of the sloppy joe, outside of the bread which is just what the sandwich qualifier requires, is the sauce, and it's distinctively used almost exclusively for sloppy joes and leftovers of sloppy joes (and maybe coneys I guess but I haven't seen this in the wild-- probably more people eat bowls of sloppy joes than sloppy joe coneys overall).

Also if the sauce used in sloppy joe sandwiches had its own distinctive name of any sort when not put on a sandwich I'd definitely concede the point
---

A sloppy joe is a sandwich consisting of ground beef or pork, onions, tomato sauce or ketchup, Worcestershire sauce, and other seasonings, served on a hamburger bun.

If you remove the bun and put it all in a bowl, you're eating a bowl of "ground beef or pork, onions, tomato sauce or ketchup, Worcestershire sauce, and other seasonings." The fact that it's a sandwich is a necessary part of its identity.

What a silly argument this is, it's no different than trying to ask if a pile of cornbeef, cheese and sauerkraut and dressing is still a Reuben. (It's not.)
---

Except you can put other things on a sloppy joe. I put cheese on mine usually. Onions would probably go on it very well too. MOST people eat it plain, sure, but that's not the only way to eat it. Because it's a sandwich.

---

Lopen posted...

Also if the sauce used in sloppy joe sandwiches had its own distinctive name of any sort when not put on a sandwich I'd definitely concede the point

I mean, again, it changes names when put on a hot dog to "coney sauce," so that implies the sauce itself isn't what's called a "sloppy joe," but the entire sandwich.

But I can request it in a bowl without it being completely absurd.

Also, I disagree with this. I'd imagine a lot of places that typically serve sloppy joes might not even have bowls for you to consume the meat from, since it's just not what a sloppy joe is and they'd have no reason to suspect to be ready to serve it that way.
---

Well, the Reuben is a Reuben because it's served on rye bread, too, so that's an essential part of what makes it a Reuben. Would you consider it a Reuben if you put it on a hamburger bun?
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I mean, again, it changes names when put on a hot dog to "coney sauce," so that implies the sauce itself isn't what's called a "sloppy joe," but the entire sandwich.

Manwich cans specifically call it "Sloppy Joe Sauce."
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

A sloppy joe is a sandwich consisting of ground beef or pork, onions, tomato sauce or ketchup, Worcestershire sauce, and other seasonings, served on a hamburger bun.

If you remove the bun and put it all in a bowl, you're eating a bowl of "ground beef or pork, onions, tomato sauce or ketchup, Worcestershire sauce, and other seasonings." The fact that it's a sandwich is a necessary part of its identity.

What a silly argument this is, it's no different than trying to ask if a pile of cornbeef, cheese and sauerkraut and dressing is still a Reuben. (It's not.)

The question is can you distinguish those ingredients without the palate of a master chef. Bacon, lettuce, and tomato, tossed in a bowl, you easily can. Sloppy joe tossed in a bowl, not so much

It's like trying to claim a milkshake is the same as tossing ice cream, milk, and whatever flavoring in a cup. There's a fundamental difference there regardless of whether you're trying to play dumb to make a point.
---

From a gluten free perspective, an acceptable bread or starch may not always be available. A pile of sandwich fillings is still, in that case, a sandwich - and that's good enough for me.


---

LeonhartFour posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

I mean, again, it changes names when put on a hot dog to "coney sauce," so that implies the sauce itself isn't what's called a "sloppy joe," but the entire sandwich.

Manwich cans specifically call it "Sloppy Joe Sauce."

Yes

Sloppy Joe Sauce

Not "Sloppy Joe"

And the Manwich can has a bun on it

Manwich is literally telling you "Here is the Sloppy Joe sauce to put on a bun to make a Sloppy Joe"

Thanks for your valuable contribution to our side of the field!
---

HashtagSEP posted...

I'd imagine a lot of places that typically serve sloppy joes might not even have bowls for you to consume the meat from,

Are you claiming a restaurant would not have bowls on hand for me to consume something from
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Yes

Sloppy Joe Sauce

Not "Sloppy Joe"

And the Manwich can has a bun on it

Thanks for your valuable contribution to our side of the field!

I mean I never claimed Sloppy Joe's was just the sauce. It's the sauce mixed with the meat.

And yes, people typically eat it on a bun. Boxes of cereal typically show the cereal in a bowl, but is it cereal if it's not in a bowl?
---

Lopen posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

I'd imagine a lot of places that typically serve sloppy joes might not even have bowls for you to consume the meat from,

Are you claiming a restaurant would not have bowls on hand for me to consume something from

I mean a restaurant is not typically where one is going to be going looking for sloppy joes most of the time

I don't think "I want a sloppy joe. Let's go to that nice restaurant."

I'm gonna go to a sandwich place, or maybe a food truck/stall.
---

A food truck that serves little bowls of egg salad probably wouldn't be able to fill my request for an egg salad sandwich either

That doesn't mean an egg salad sandwich isn't an acceptable way to eat it
---

Lopen posted...

A food truck that serves little bowls of egg salad probably wouldn't be able to fill my request for an egg salad sandwich either

That doesn't mean an egg salad sandwich isn't an acceptable way to eat it

Your analogy of going from thing that is already a thing to thing that is already a thing doesn't really match going from thing that is already a thing to that thing deconstructed in a bowl without half of it.
---

LeonhartFour posted...

Well, the Reuben is a Reuben because it's served on rye bread, too, so that's an essential part of what makes it a Reuben. Would you consider it a Reuben if you put it on a hamburger bun?

Yes, but it's non-traditional, and you should make that distinction. And also, you are retaining the traditional structure, at least.

It's totally fine to take a sandwich and put it in a salad, bowl, or wrap, but you have to specify. If you take the ingredients on their own (the pile of reuben) without putting then in anything, usually it's called a "deconstructed" sandwich, and those are stupid.

I'd argue you're eating deconstructed sloppy joes.

---

Yeah I mean if you want to settle on "deconstructed sloppy joes" I'll accept the terms
---

I'm just saying food trucks having limited options on what they can serve you doesn't mean that's the only way to eat something. It just means they don't account for fringe options due to space. All you proved is that sloppy joe on the bun is the most popular way of eating it, which no one is arguing against!
---