Better to debut- Heel or Face?

[jason305]

If this is in the wrong section please move it. Ok when a Superstar makes their debut do you think it's better to debut as a Heel or a Face?

I believe that it is better (in the WWE) to debut as a Face.

People are loving the heels more nowadays (besides the kids) so when you try and turn face it's so much more difficult as your character becomes very one dimensional. Look at MVP for example.

If you debut as a Face turning heel later keeps your character fresh and it's easier the to get over with the crowd. I will use Cody rhodes as an example here?

So what do you think? Better to debut Heel or Face or doesn't it matter at all?

 

[A Double]

I think it depends on the in-ring style of the wrestler. If you're talking about an AJ Styles/Evan Bourne type, I'd probably debut them as a face. Someone that can routinely do the high flying moves and keep up the fast paced style will usually get the crowd on their feet without even having to use the mic much. As for wrestlers that don't too much of the exciting stuff, say Chris Masters, I'd debut him as a heel. Hopefully they can talk well on the mic, that will help the cause. Plus with their more limited style, they can use a more aggresive moveset and that in itself will probably get the crowd to boo a little. I don't think it benefits anyone to debut one way or another more, if the debut is done right.

 

[Rated_R_Superstar2010]

very good and interesting topic. i'd say it really comes down to what the wrestler is best at. debuting with out cutting some type of promo isnt a good idea. the wrestler needs to have some interaction with the crowd and be able to develop their character.

personally i'd want to debut as a heel. most faces are pretty bland and dont have much depth to their character, see bourne and mvp. when mvp was a heel he was great and he had one of the best mid-card feuds in a while with matt hardy. look at kofi when he 1st debut. there was nothing to set him apart from everyother face mid-carder. with a few good promos on orton ppl care about him and got to see more of his character. miz has done wonders with his development and i dont think that could have been possible if he were a face. you are right though jason305, going from face to heel is easier than going heel to face, see cm punk and mvp. they basically switched spots and look who has a world title reign.

so its not necessarily if your a face or heel, its whether or not you get any time to show off your mic and in-ring skill. wwe can push anyone they want with any gimmick they want. its just a matter of being lucky enough for to get that chance.

 

[2rowdy4u]

i think it depends on how well known u are. for example bryan danielson very well known from roh and ricky steamboat jr also very well know these guys are better of making there debut as a face. if ur not as popular with wrestling fans like those guys u should debut as a heel cause it will be alot easier to get the crowd to boo u then cheer u

 

[twisterwrw929]

Definitely heel, no question. It's so much easier to get boo'd and over with the crowd as opposed to being a face. The fans don't know that guy so why should they cheer him? Not to mention that most are pretty bland starting out, I think it's very tough for a new guy to get over as a good guy trying to get cheered.

Look at most of the main event guys now, not all, but most got over during early heel runs in their career. While those guys may have been faces at some point early in their career, it's usually not the type of character that got them over with the crowd. So maybe it's not just necessarily debut exactly, but you pretty much gotta be a heel early in your career to get over.

 

[Supernova]

Anyone with the charisma and connection to debut as a face should do so, because getting the fans on your side straight away is obviously hard, and therefore shows massive talent and a real likeability to mark you out as a guy to watch. Being a heel is easier, it's always easier to piss people off.

 

[RockNWag]

It seems like the heels are end up being the HUGE names in the WWE....And a lot of time, they end up as faces. I believe Bret Hart debuted as a heel (correct me if I'm wrong?) Austin was a heel when he debuted in the wwe, the Rock, Orton, and John Cena when he debuted, had a rivalry with UT.

 

[Shazam!]

debuting as a heel gets a new wrestler more attention than he would get if he debuts as a face, unless he has incredible in ring skills in which case the wrestler would get noticed because of that, ex. Yoshi Tatsu.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I honestly don't think it matters whether someone debuts as a face or a heel. They will eventually figure out (if they don't already know) which type of character they are better at. Someone who is destined for greatness as a face will eventually end up as one, and someone destined to be a great heel will eventually end up a heel. There are some exceptions such as those who are good at both. Then you have heels that are great at being villains but get so cheered that they end up going tweener or even becoming an anti-hero face. What it all comes down to is that (in most cases) the wrestler will figure out if he's better as a face or heel eventually, and end up as the type he was meant to be.

 

[D-Man]

This may sound like a cop out, but I feel that neither would suffice. I feel that force-feeding a character down the audience's throats is completely detrimental towards their character in the long run. It's the classic example of how the booker thinks they know everything about their audience.

Allow me to explain this further...

As far as I'm concerned, the two greatest wrestlers' debuts (in terms of character development) in the past two decades were Kurt Angle and Muhammed Hassan. Completely effective in every way, once these guys signed onto the roster, their direction was EXACTLY the way it should have been... 100% dictated by the audience's reactions.

Kurt Angle was hyped for a while on TV, but as a completely neutral character. He was well-acclaimed for his success in the Olympics, but the gimmick was never shoved down our throats. He was given a few neutral vignettes, wrestled dark matches as a heel to build his ring skills in front of the live crowd, and the WWE allowed the audience to make the decision as to whether they wanted to love him or hate him. As the weeks went by and the vignettes played, the live audiences began to boo him incessantly. It was an easy decision to bring him in as an egotistical heel that overplayed his own shoot-successes.

Muhammed Hassan was done EXACTLY the same way. The WWE played neutral vignettes of him on Smackdown, and his character was explained as nothing more than an American man of Arabic descent. He smiled, acted normal, and really didn't lean towards being a face or a heel. But the crowds heard "Arab" and went completely apeshit when these vignettes were aired. It was a really easy decision to have him debut as a heel that was pissed off at America for being prejudiced.

My point is that very wrestler should be given a character and a fair opportunity for the audience to decide their fate. A natural hatred or love is always going to be much stronger than a manufactured one. The people hated Angle and Hassan more than any heels over the past two decades, and why? Because it was natural for them. This propelled them to quick success. Too bad about Hassan, though...