I do think an all meat chili has a superior flavor. When you don't short cut any of the process.I mean this as a serious question, for those of you that insist that chili should have beans in it, have you ever had a killer bowl of red terlingua-style chili?
As someone who can't fathom preferring bean-stew over chili (note that I'm saying preferring, I will still eat it with beans but I won't make it), I'm just wondering if people are saying beans out of tradition, culture, region, or actual informed preference?
I'm just thinking that even in my semi-southern region, only a few rare places actually serve real chili here, so I'm wondering if people just don't have the opportunity to try traditional chili con carne very often.
In my opinion, there are two problems with an all meat chili. First, people have a tendency to take the high meat content as an excuse to either skip browning the meat, seasoning well, or allowing the time you really need for the flavors to meld. Skip any of those, and you will have a mediocre chili at best. lots of meat or not.
Secondly, it costs to much. Making a whole pot of basically cooked meat is expensive, and in my opinion, not worth the difference in price from a pot of chili with beans. Especially when you have bones to cook in with the chili. They can provide a lot of flavor to, relatively, flavorless beans. Given the time to do so anyway.
Happy cooking!