Anyone puzzled by judges' choice like we were?

We just watched our DVR'd finale of the so-called-celebrity worst cooks season. I say so-called because there were only two contestants on the show I had ever heard of before--neither of them finalists.

My wife and are totally flummoxed by the choice of the winner. Normally, on any of these cooking competitions we watch, you can tell who is going to win or lose based on the comments made by the judges.

For this finale, it seemed like Kendra won all three rounds. The criticisms of her dishes were all much more mild than the huge problems Jenni had--particularly leaving some shells in her dish. The appetizer round had two items, Jenni had one that was superb, one that they hated, making her appetizer far worse overall. She also got much more severe criticism for the other two dishes. It seemed clear that Kendra would win, they liked all three of her dishes better--based on their comments.

Did she really win just because her dishes were viewed as more challenging to cook? It's not like Kendra just heated up a can of soup!

I also was disappointed that the chef stars, Rachel and Anne, were far more involved in the final cooking than in previous seasons of Worst Cooks, where they had to look on from a distance and couldn't really see just how things were going. Here, after Rachel and Anne dictated exactly what dishes would be prepared, they were literally sticking their faces right over the pans and helping them on whether to add or take out something.

It was almost like they were doing everything except having their aides physically handle the utensils and food. A college English professor can help his daughter write an "A" high school essay too if he stands right over her shoulder and helps her rephrase every sentence of the report that he outlined in detail for her to prepare. But does she deserve the grade?