Heel or Face "company champions"?

[TWJC: The Beginning]

k, so for a long time I've thought about this. WWE is one of the few companies that I can think of that have their "company champion", the guy who generally keeps the belt, as a babyface. Now obviously, they seem to know what they're doing. However, does anyone else notice this?

It seems ass backwards to me. You should have an unbeatable heel, either because he's too evil (Triple H) or too heelish (Flair). Then you have a babyface to chase him for months and then he finally wins. Eventually gets screwed back out of it and we start over. I mean, how do you even have a heel "chase" a title. He loses, then there's no reason for it to continue because "good has won" and there is closure.

When you have a babyface on top all the time some people start to resent it. Then again, as the face of your company a babyface can sell more shirts and appear on more shows.

So which do you prefer? A heel or a babyface as a company champion? Also, do you feel WWE works ass backwards or are they the only ones who have gotten it right?

 

[Nate DaMac]

Well when it comes to the faces having the title longer, I'm not so sure that that is exactly the way it is. I mean shit, Miz just held the title for nearly 6 months, Kane held it for around 4 months, and those have been the longest title reigns that I can really recall that were lengthy in the past year or so and it's kept things rather interesting. Neither necessarily resulted in the feel good moment that you seem to be speaking of but both reigns gave a lot of credibility(although Kane's seems to have disappeared as quickly as it arrived) to the respective heels holding the title, making a situation like the one you speak of seem more likely down the road. Cena winning the title off of Miz wasn't a huge moment, not by a long shot. But if Miz were to regain it, which is certainly believable as he is an established top of the card guy now, and some newer face like a Morrison(example) starts to gain a lot of momentum, wouldn't it put him over a bit bigger now? Before it would have looked like he just went over a paper champion that won it on a fluke, but if he were to do it during Miz's second reign, he would definitely be held in higher regards than he is now being a 2 time champion.

That's just some general thinking though. I think you're right for the most part even though WWE doesn't seem to go that route too often these days. It may be because buyrates tend to dwindle when they offer the same main event match on 3 or more back to back PPVs. Just a thought.

As for whether or not I prefer a heel or face champion, I really don't care. As long as the person does his job and shows that he deserves to be in the position that he's in, I'm fine with it.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I don't just mean now, I mean historically WWE has had the belt on babyface for an abnormally high amount of time. Hogan, Hart, HBK, Diesel, Stone Cold, Rock, Cena, all these guys had very long (well not Rock but he was always there) title reigns as a babyface.

 

[The Prodigal Anti-Lemming]

I don’t have a specific preference, as I’ll support a wrestler regardless of whether said wrestler is being cheered or booed. As far as having heel champions long-term, I guess I would prefer it done more just because its more realistic—can’t have the babyface plausibly winning all the time, after all, Hogan hasn’t held the championship for awhile, and none of us are eight years old anymore. Besides, as history has proven, a great heel will draw every bit as well as a great babyface.

Certainly, babyfaces tend to be more profitable as headliners—although I would argue that in this age of the modern anti-hero, those standards no longer apply in the same way they used to—but there have been numerous top heel stars over the decades. Modern enthusiasts will point to Triple-H as probably WWE’s top drawing star of the past ten years (even though he hasn’t held the belt in awhile), and he was almost always a heel while on top. In WCW, it’s easy to overlook the fact that 1993—a time when the promotion’s PPV buyrates were emerging from a quagmire to rival the WWF—was dominated by Big Van Vader.

Ric Flair was the guy who kept the NWA’s head above water, despite generally being a heel. The fans didn’t pay to see him merely in the hopes of seeing him lose, but because they knew he could deliver the goods and was an entertaining figure. Some of that, to an extent, was a rejection of the WWF’s Hulk Hogan, who in spite of his overwhelming popularity, was a guy NWA fans did not really care about. In the old WWWF, “Superstar” Billy Graham was champion for almost a year, and was dethroned only because Vince Sr wanted to stubbornly follow through on his promise to push his conqueror, Bob Backlund (a guy who was not a huge draw, in spite of the longevity of his reign).

Going back even further, Harley Race was the NWA’s most profitable draw of the seventies, despite his heel tendencies, as was Nick Bockwinkel in the AWA. Buddy Rogers and Bill Longson are two old school heels who boasted incredible world title reigns. In Longson’s case, conventional knowledge might suggest that fans might get sick of paying to see him lose after four years on top, but his NWA title reign remained profitable throughout. And it’s easy to forget that El Santo, the single figure who influenced lucha libre the most, drew the fans and personified wrestling in Mexico, was in fact a heel during the first ten years or so of his run.

Incidentally, Gorgeous George was above the collection of title belts, as he was the heel who drew everywhere on the west coast regardless of who he was matched against and whether or not there was a title on the line.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

From the company's standpoint I would think having the heel champion and the contender face would sell tickets more than the other way around. I prefer a heel champion because it makes me think "oh, the good guy can beat him" and it's like a tease when the bad guy knocks off his challenger. There is an aura of mystery on how long will it take for someone to dethrone the tyrant. But with a face champion you know he's about to get screwed somehow, because heels rarely beat the good guy cleanly.

That, and we generally like seeing the bad guy win, because most of the time they are more entertaining than the face. Almost every classic movie wouldn't be shit without their Darth Vaders, nazis, or Hannibal Lecters.

 

[mat1992clarke]

I prefer the heel champion, who can forget JBL... nearly a year long reign as WWE Champion on SmackDown, beating guys like Big Show, Undertaker & Eddie Guerrero. He went through a fair few of WWE's babyfaces throughout his reign and came up against the beginning of 'Super Cena'.

 

[LegendKiller716]

I like both, but right now I think WWE needs a strong heel champion on Raw. When Triple H was top dog he made main eventers like Orton and Batista. Then over on Smackdown, JBL the longest reigning champ in Smackdown history, put over Cena, the biggest face in the company.

This is why WWE is low on top faces, they don't have a top heel. The switched Orton and didn't replace him.

I think Triple H needs one last lengthy title reign as a heel, maybe after Mania he gets pissed and starts attacking everyone and goes after the belt. But if you give Triple H the belt as a heel, and he holds it for 6-10 months, the fans will get behind anyone going against him. Than you take the guy you want to capitalize on this and give him the strap. And a new face is born.

 

[SmattyG]

Firstly I gotta say I'm finding myself cheer more and more for heels as I get older. Loved Hogan and Andre as a kid, and later Savage and Bret...but now I'm cheering Alberto Del Rio and Wade Barrett as much as anyone. Don't get me wrong - I think Cena is well deserving of being the face of the company - he seems pretty genuine in his love for the business and the company and has shown nothing but respect to those that have come before him. However.....

Wasn't it more fun when Jericho had the title? Or Batista towards the end? Even The Miz - the way he worked the "what?"chants a few months back on Raw was amazing. Cena seems a bit stale since the Nexus feud, Orton has been boring for years, Christian? Don't even start me on why he shouldn't be champ...

Bottom line is someone needs to step up and be on the level of Cena as both someone who can carry the company and also respect the business. Triple H did this as both heel and face for years, Cena will continue to do so...not sure who the next one will be but something tells me that in 10 years time we may be talking about Cody Rhodes in the same breath.....

Faces should always be chasing the heels is the short answer to the thread - but Vince has to get his biggest heels (CM Punk, Alberto) winning some damn important matches first up...

 

[Sleep Time]

It all depends on who wins the champion. I just want someone who is physically capable of making a great match to be the champion, so guys like Mason Ryan no, guys like Christian, Hell yes, guys like David Otunga, No guys like John Cena, Sure, guys like The Great Khali, Hell no, you get my point...

 

[FlairFan2003]

Really it depends on two things, how convincing the champion is and how good his challengers are.

Ric Flair is the classic example of a successful heel champion, spending probably 75% of the 1980's as a detestable bad guy while being champ almost all decade, drawng crowds, TV ratings, etc. Flair however was an exremely entertaining character in his prime, outlandish interviews, and he also delivered in the ring against almost everyone. Still, Flair was at his best when he had a true legitimate "ggod guy" to oppose him, someone fans could really believe was capable of being champ for a long time. Kerry Von Erich, Dusty Rhodes, Magnum TA, Lex Luger, and Sting all fit this mold, and Flair drew good money in showcase matches against all of them. Fans not only have to dislike you as a heel champion, they have to legitimately believe that your opponent can beat you AND remain champ.

Likewise, Flair was entertaining and his matches were good but fans were not interested in him as a bad guy being chased by Kendall Whyndam, Brad Armstrong, and only moderately enthused about his fued with the Garvins (though the NWA put a lot of props in hat fued such as Jimmy putting a date with his wife vs Flair's title and Flair's insistance he would retire if he didn't beat Ronnie at Starrcade).

Same hold true for fan favorite champions. Hulk Hogan became stale and much less interesting once he had vanquished Randy Savage (twice), Roddy Piper, Ted DiBiase, and Harley Race. Putting over the Ultmate Warrior and returning to "save the title" from evil Sgt Slaughter was fun, but after awhile the parade of overweight monsters and muscle heads with no wrestling skills became dull, as did Hogan, once all the legit title threats had been vanquished.

Brett Hart was a great wrestler but his time as champion draws mixed reviews because of the perception he didn't draw well. However, with WWE in a state of flux during those early years, having lost most of the bankable superstars from the 80's and struggling to replace them (kinda like now) how many top guys did Hart face that you truly believed could beat him. Hart certainly had a lot to do with the rise of HBK into main event status, but if he didn't perform s well as some would have liked at the box office how much of that was due to lousy booking and a lack of quality opponents.

Same thing happened in WCW with Sting. Nervous that he would be overshawdowed by Flair, they immediately ended their program after STing won the title, even turning Flair good for awhile in a fued with Ron Simmons and Butch Reed, but WCW had few bankable villains to match against him. Fans loved Sting, he sold lots of merchandise, but no one bought Barry Whyndam or Sid as guys who were good enough to beat him. For whatever reason they didn't let him battle Luger, one guy big enough and accepted enough with fans to be believable as champ. Eventually they put the belt back on Flair, but Sting's lackluster reign was less a reflection of his talent or work ethic than it was WCW's failure to find him/build him up believable contenders.

Personally, I enjoy seeing the good guy chase the title, because if he wins its a great fan moment, title change, good triumphs over evil, seeing the hated villain vanquished. This is why almost every WrestleMania ends with a fan favorite champion winning. The only time I enjoy seeing a "babyface" champ chased by a "heel" is when the heel is someone like Flair or HHH, or even a bad guy Undertaker, someone who has the gravitas to be champ, that you know has the skills, but also a character that you know could believebaly win the title straight out talent wise but is cunning enough to swerve it away. I enjoyed Edge pursuing the title for this reason in recent years, just as I enjoyed watching Flair chase Rhodes and Steamboat years earlier.

 

[CenaSux4Life78]

Heel or face.....well it all depends on the character. The last GREAT heel champion to me was HHH, back when Bishoff gave him the world title on RAW. Yes, there have been other heel champs since, Punk and Jericho were really well organized. But I truly feel that the cycle is almost set to start a "heel company champ" again. As we all know, usually top guys last about 6-7 years on top. Most of the top guys are near that mark now. I think Cena has about a year left, Orton 2. I have also noticed how the heels seem to be getting more pushes recently. That makes me believe that the hells are taking over, so to speak. So, I think its only a matter of time before the heel company champion is the main attraction. Its just a cycle.