Hey, who are you callin' a bad guy?

[Mustang Sally]

Given the traditional heel vs. face scenarios that have applied to pro wrestling since the Jurassic period, it's refreshing to see all the situations lately that keep us guessing. Sometimes, it's hard to know who to root for and against....and I think that's terrific.

Just last night, we saw Christian vs. Daniel Bryan. Okay, we know who's going to be the fan favorite in that match, but Christian isn't anyone's idea of a heel, right? Or is he? Didn't he attack Daniel from behind at the very outset? How can he be seen as good if he ambushes the "Yes!" man?

Still, when he fought Randy Orton a week ago, Christian was fighting as a face, wasn't he? And he lost to Orton, being the only one of the Elimination Chamber crowd to lose to Randy, which makes you wonder what the plans for Christian's attitude are.

But, not so fast! Randy didn't lose to everyone from the EC match (except Christian); his contest against Sheamus was interrupted before a clear winner could emerge, right? Okay, no problem there, 'cause Sheamus is a good guy.

But wait! Is he? Don't they have a match for Sheamus against Christian this Friday on Smackdown? How can that be? They're both good guys; what could Christian possibly have against Sheamus?

Oh, that's right..... with Sheamus and Christian functioning as a tag team last Friday, Sheamus accidentally delivered a Brogue Kick to Christian, knocking him out of the match. But, if that shouldn't make a difference, why are they scheduled to fight it out this Friday? Who's the good guy here, anyway?

Then, there's Cesaro. He's a bad guy, right? After all, he just fought John Cena last night.....and every other match he's had has been against good guys, therefore making him a heel, yes?

Well, maybe not. Cesaro also fought Randy Orton.....and to our great surprise, beat him! Anyone who beats Orton has got to be a good guy, everyone knows that! Right? Well, right?

Finally, the big one: the Shield vs. the Wyatts. Who in bloody hell is the fan favorite here? How do we tell the good guys from the bad guys? Fact is, we know fully well that in a direct confrontation between the factions, the vast majority of fans are gonna cheer for the Shield, as hard as that idea would have been to accept several months ago. We even saw an example of it last night in their brief confrontation in the ring. The fans cheered Shield when Roman Reigns called out the Wyatts.

But if the Shield is going to be cheered at Elimination Chamber, they're now good guys, aren't they?

No? They're not? I don't get it.



Point is, I think the blurring of the "lines of virtue" is exciting and refreshing, especially since they're giving us so much to guess about. Sure, many folks on this forum claim to have it all figured out; they know everything that's going to happen. I sure don't, though, and I'm finding it challenging to try and sort it all out.

What do you think?

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I believe that the lines are blurred mostly because of the time of the year we are at and mainly because you are supposed to have six guys who despise each other and want to be the main event of WrestleMania. That has been working wonderfully and to WWE's credit as been giving a lot of great in-ring performances for guys that usually would be overlooked like Randy Orton and John Cena. However I don't see that as "grey" in a black and white world - it's something that as a reason to happen.

Yesterday I believe, Christian did indeed pulled an heel turn on Daniel Bryan. It was not him being who he's been in the past, it was clear a more opportunistic and more of a bad guy. The announcing team did indeed try to defend his actions, but at the end of the day attacking a big babyface from behind as well as trying to injure him isn't a characteristic of a "good guy" and as soon as the "heel" commentator starts to say that he's enjoying the babyface, that usually means that an heel turn is about to happen or already happened. It's something you'll have to follow closely and the fact that Christian whined about Sheamus's Brogue Kick on SmackDown is yet another indication and a reason to tune in for the scheduled match on Friday.

But the crowd reaction has been very crazy mostly because of Batista's role in my mind. He's a babyface, but he's also a heel and his actions seem to follow that suit in a regard that he wants the championship and he'll beat the living crap out of whomever they put him against, regardless of crowd support. As for The Shield v. Wyatts, it's a heel v. heel match. It usually doesn't happen, but it's not a first in the WWE and it sure as hell is making it entertaining and more since this is a strong hint for the Roman Reigns babyface turn. All in all is fantastic booking, but WWE isn't going to fully let the roles of "heel" and "babyface" die down. The crowd can always "boo" and "cheer" who they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a guy is "good" or "bad" - just look at Cena, he's been booed the most part of his career, but he's as good as one gets and he has faced guys that are more liked and guys that usually are more hated for the crowd and it never messed with their on screen roles.

Cesaro is aligned with Zeb Colter, who's been knocking down people and verbally abusing other superstars. That doesn't seem nice to me. He was scheduled to face Orton because of the angle they were rolling, but you usually don't see Orton going after other heels. It was just part of the angle. To an extent also is the feud between the stables, it has a reason behind and the reason is what makes us cheer and boo them - The Wyatts costed Shield's opportunity, genuinely and without reason, so The Shield are right in what they are saying and I really want to see if they are going to make them pay for it, after all, you don't play with the Hounds of Justice.

 

[Mustang Sally]

As for The Shield v. Wyatts, it's a heel v. heel match. It usually doesn't happen, but it's not a first in the WWE and it sure as hell is making it entertaining and more since this is a strong hint for the Roman Reigns babyface turn.

You're right, and there's one more element to the feud I neglected in my post: it can be argued that while Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins are still functioning as heels, Roman Reigns is behaving effectively as a face.....at least he did last night.

He beat Mark Henry, fair and square. He performed that midair punch and then the spear; there was nothing illegal about any of it. Most of all, he didn't need his buddies to help him.....and the way the fans cheered Reigns when he called out the Wyatts ("Hey, why don't you come out here and talk that noise?") made me wonder if a babyface change isn't coming for Roman.....soon.

I don't think the conflict with the Wyatts is going to last beyond the next PPV, do you? It doesn't really matter who wins the match either, because I believe the purpose of it all is to enable the Shield to break up. After watching Reigns cleanly defeat Mark Henry, the time is has arrived. Even if they cross us up and are kept together a while longer, the direction is set.

Yes, both the Shield and Wyatts are heel teams.......but a lot can happen on Sunday.

 

[Kool Aid Man]

I like it as well. I don't think every match needs to be on blurred lines, but letting in ring work and the fans decide who is to be cheered and jeered is refreshing.

Most people in the know, IE if you're on this forum, are going to cheer for who they think is more talented during a match and hope the WWE sees it the same way versus this guy is bad and this guy is good.

 

[LSN80]

While I've always been an old school, good overcomes evil kind of guy, there's also another stance i love that pro wrestling sometimes takes: You don't need an alignment to fight, you just need a reason.

All of last night's matches and Randy Orton's Gauntlet series can be filed under exactly that: It's the participants in the Elimination Chamber, and does anyone truly think that one will hesitate to fight another, simply because both are faces, or conversely, heels? Further, this was a GREAT way to hype the Chamber, especially the excellent Cena vs. Cesaro match. I'm slightly partial to the Wyatt/Bryan match from Royal Rumble for MOTY here in the early going, but much of that is that I saw it live. But Cena and Cesaro is a close second.

Christian vs. Sheamus? Accident or not, I'd be a pissed off man in real life if someone kicked my head off, and my first inclination would be to fight him. Christian and Sheamus are fighting in literally the first chance they have, given the week old announcement of Orton vs. Sheamus for last night's Raw. This makes sense, so it works for me.
As for the Shield/Wyatt's, the same logic applies. The Wyatt's gave the Shield a reason, and the Shield want to fight them now. Simple as that. Yes, I know this matcfh will likely be used as further fodder for the Shield breakup and a Roman Reigns babyface turn, but so what? On the outside looking in, this is two teams that just so happen to have three members each with a reason to fight. From someone who isn't analyzing every booking decision, unlike myself, this is simply two teams with a reason to fight, regardless of the fact that both are heels.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. While the face/heel dynamic is still the strongest seller in pro-wrestling(outside of Daniel Bryan and whomever he faces, apparently, organic feuds where two men or two teams have a reason, not an alignment, is my favorite dynamic.

Like is happening with the Shield vs. Wyatt's, I wish we would see more of it.

But if the Shield is going to be cheered at Elimination Chamber, they're now good guys, aren't they?

The unfortunate flaw with that logic is the reception for the ultimate face in wrestling, John Cena. While he's given mixed reactions in some towns, he was booed by 90% of the audience at the Royal Rumble. I was told to 'shut up', in not so nice of terms, by fans around me who were booing Cena as I was cheering him, as I was heavily outnumbered.

So given the fact that Cena was booed, and is heavily in some towns, doesn't that alone make him a heel?

 

[suleman09]

I think it's great that we have these blurred lines. I think the reason though behind this didn't really begin from the creative staff. I think it's because the talent themselves are getting natural reactions from the fans. A few examples

Cesaro - he is being cheered because he is naturally gifted with charisma and he is a talented performer in the ring. He show cases his strength in a way that not many people can in the ring (like that suplex from the outside from the second rope, over the top into the ring...wow) and people love to see it and respect his ability so they cheer him even though he is technically "heel"

Cena - He is the actual Face of the company and most definitely a baby face but people boo him to hell because they are just tired of seeing him with the same 'ol routine.

The Shield - technically "heels" but they are starting to be cheered because they are entertaining and Roman is getting over as well so that helps

 

[Pedigree1]

This is actually quite a interesting time of period in the WWE. The lines are blurred and im enjoying it. Face vs heels is as old as the bible. But lately,the lines are blurred. Shield for example are Heels the bad guys,the people boo; em. But when they are staring down the Wyatt's the crowd cheers them making them faces no?

Cesaro is a heel faces mostly faces but did go one on one with Orton who is a heel and people cheered Cesaro. Making him a face but he is a heel. I like the mixing up,its quite refreshing and a nice change of pace. Like when Sheamus supposedly accidentally kicked Christian,was it a true accident? Perhaps. But damnit sometimes you just need to throw down heel vs heel or not!

Im quite enjoying this time of year,makes it worthwhile to watch

 

[Mustang Sally]

Like when Sheamus supposedly accidentally kicked Christian,was it a true accident?

See, that's a good example of what we're talking about. Yes, I definitely felt it was an accident. Sheamus was aiming for the Shield guy (Ambrose?), not Christian.

The thing is, while logic might dictate that all is forgiven between the two good guys, it's not necessarily so. While Christian might hold a grudge and turn heel, we can't discount the possibility that Sheamus gets pissed off about being blamed for what was just an accident.....and reverts to his evil ways. After all, they are fighting it out Friday night, right?

Hell, for all we know, they both turn bad and form a heel tag team.

No, I'm not actually predicting something like that, but the point is......who knows? This is pro wrestling and the "what in hell is gonna happen next?" is one of the best aspects of it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Just like in real life sometimes, the concepts of "good" and "bad" in pro wrestling do have to be skewed at times. Is Randy Orton someone that we'd consider to be a "bad guy" at this point? Yes, because he continuously shows off character traits that most people would label as negative. He's arrogant, selfish, vindictive, gives off an sense of "entitlement" and seems to have no sense of morality.

Last night, Christian was "mocking" Daniel Bryan and was booed for it by fans. So is Christian a "bad guy" because he "made fun" of someone that fans really like? Or, from a kayfabe perspective, could he have been doing something that was designed to merely get a rise from people and to make sure their attention stayed focused on the match? Also, does being much more "aggressive" than usual in a "contact sport" like pro wrestling indicative of someone that's "mean" or "bad?" Does it merely mean that he's taking advantage of an opportunity to not only impress fans by defeating someone they're really into, but impressing management as well? If so, is that necessarily a "bad" thing?

Let's say that Christian isn't turning heel. Let's also say that last night's match against Bryan was something of a reminder to people in the sense of "Hey, don't forget about me. I know I'm the only guy that Randy's beaten in this gauntlet thing so far, but that doesn't mean you can take me lightly. I'm gonna show you how much of a threat I am." Everybody has a bit of an ego, that's only natural and it's something that we often tend to overlook. Christian wanting to express that ego a bit by reminding people that he's damn good as well doesn't make him a "bad guy", even if it means he's beating up someone that fans like and view as a "nice guy" like Daniel Bryan.

 

[SSJPhenom]

I think LSN80 hit the nail right square directly on the head.

It's really not as complicated as it seems. The heels and faces who are fighting one another in the Elimination Chamber match are doing so because they are in the match and the Authority is making them compete. Christian is facing Sheamus because Sheamus kicked the man in the head during a tag match. Was it an accident? Seems like it, however, does it matter how it happened? Not really because it happened. Christian has a reason to be upset with Sheamus. If Austin and the Rock were a tag team and the Rock accidentally nailed Austin with a clothesline or something; what would be expected from Austin? It would be expected that Austin would stomp a mud-hole in the Rock's ass and walk it dry and vice versa if Austin accidentally nailed the Rock.

As far as the Shield and Wyatt Family goes, well the Wyatts cost the Shield a chance to be in the Elimination Chamber match. So naturally, the Shield has a big problem with that. Does it mean that because they will clearly be the favorites in this feud that they are no longer heels? No, it just means that they currently have a score to settle with the Wyatts.

I agree that all of this is exciting though. The WWE always starts to get good during this time of the year.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

That Robin Thicker guy is changing the landscape of wrestling and nothing will ever be the same. You know you want, you know you want it.

I'm struggling a bit with the heel v heel idea. Not for myself, I rarely root for anyone but more for the kids who need a simple premise to get invested. I guess as long as both sides are "over" enough there will be enough emotion to counter the lack of clarity. With the Wyatt's and Shield, the spectacle trumps all.

As far as faces acting like heels, we've seen it for years. Go back and watch Hogan v Sheik and tell me Hogan is a saint. These guys are competitors around the ring and they can pull some crap and maintain their hymen.

In the end I think WWE is looking to have a few full faces, a lot of clear heels, and then a big segment that can push boundaries and be booked with more flexibility.

It makes for more fun for me too.

 

[Slash-LN]

I think it's funny that when TNA was doing the exact same thing they were heavily criticized for it. It was hard to tell faces from heels and people complained almost every week about it.

Now that WWE is doing it people are excited by it. It just seems kind of weird to me. And yes I'm very aware that a lot of people didn't watch TNA when it was going on. This isn't a TNA vs WWE post.

I was often confused by TNA doing it because it made it hard to follow things.
I'm confused with WWE doing it because with heels vs. heels it makes me wonder who the crowd is supposed to cheer for.

At least with face vs face the crowd can just invest in the match itself and cheer that. They can applaud both sides and it's okay.

Last night when Christian sneak attacked Bryan I wondered if that was meant to be the start of a heel turn for Christian. Obviously he and Sheamus are fighting on Smackdown to help boost interest in the Elimination Chamber this Sunday.

I like many people am very interested in the Wyatts vs the Shield and think the WWE has done a great job in the execution with the feud. When it comes to the feud itself it seems like the Shield are acting as faces yet they retain their heelish tactics on the other segments they're involved in so it creates an interesting dynamic.

I think it will be interesting to see how Elimination Chamber and the following night's Raw play out. Especially with someone like Christian.

 

[The Eighties]

Stone Cold Steve Austin is the most popular professional wrestler of the last 20 years, he was the #1 guy and the top face in the industry and his defining characteristics were that of a heel when he got over initially, although he straddled more of a grey area as time went on.

After that there was no way back to a pure babyface......or is there? I mean is there anything remotely threatening, mean, badass or rebellious about Daniel Bryan, hell! he's a main event version of Ricky Morton without the "rock star" appeal that was really only an appeal to mullet loving rats.

I think right now WWE are testing the waters due to the fans resistance over the last decade to accept certain guys they have ordained to push, they are noticeably having Cole be less preachy and judgmental on commentary and JBL is always blustering away with loud reasoning for the actions of designated heels.

The Gauntlet we have just witnessed Orton run is not something usually done to a heel and certainly not by the heel authority character that is supposedly his biggest advocate.

However WWE will tread this line carefully, they may allow proceedings to develop more maturely and do less "You are supposed to like/hate this guy" obvious finger pointing and pandering and have more face vs face and heel vs heel matches, but there will still be some clear definitions that certain actions are unacceptable otherwise you can't generate a pay-off and that is required when the fights are worked rather than competitive, you need an emotional investment in at least one guy in the match.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

Given the traditional heel vs. face scenarios that have applied to pro wrestling since the Jurassic period, it's refreshing to see all the situations lately that keep us guessing. Sometimes, it's hard to know who to root for and against....and I think that's terrific.

Just last night, we saw Christian vs. Daniel Bryan. Okay, we know who's going to be the fan favorite in that match, but Christian isn't anyone's idea of a heel, right? Or is he? Didn't he attack Daniel from behind at the very outset? How can he be seen as good if he ambushes the "Yes!" man?

Still, when he fought Randy Orton a week ago, Christian was fighting as a face, wasn't he? And he lost to Orton, being the only one of the Elimination Chamber crowd to lose to Randy, which makes you wonder what the plans for Christian's attitude are.

But, not so fast! Randy didn't lose to everyone from the EC match (except Christian); his contest against Sheamus was interrupted before a clear winner could emerge, right? Okay, no problem there, 'cause Sheamus is a good guy.

But wait! Is he? Don't they have a match for Sheamus against Christian this Friday on Smackdown? How can that be? They're both good guys; what could Christian possibly have against Sheamus?

Oh, that's right..... with Sheamus and Christian functioning as a tag team last Friday, Sheamus accidentally delivered a Brogue Kick to Christian, knocking him out of the match. But, if that shouldn't make a difference, why are they scheduled to fight it out this Friday? Who's the good guy here, anyway?

Then, there's Cesaro. He's a bad guy, right? After all, he just fought John Cena last night.....and every other match he's had has been against good guys, therefore making him a heel, yes?

Well, maybe not. Cesaro also fought Randy Orton.....and to our great surprise, beat him! Anyone who beats Orton has got to be a good guy, everyone knows that! Right? Well, right?

Finally, the big one: the Shield vs. the Wyatts. Who in bloody hell is the fan favorite here? How do we tell the good guys from the bad guys? Fact is, we know fully well that in a direct confrontation between the factions, the vast majority of fans are gonna cheer for the Shield, as hard as that idea would have been to accept several months ago. We even saw an example of it last night in their brief confrontation in the ring. The fans cheered Shield when Roman Reigns called out the Wyatts.

But if the Shield is going to be cheered at Elimination Chamber, they're now good guys, aren't they?

No? They're not? I don't get it.



Point is, I think the blurring of the "lines of virtue" is exciting and refreshing, especially since they're giving us so much to guess about. Sure, many folks on this forum claim to have it all figured out; they know everything that's going to happen. I sure don't, though, and I'm finding it challenging to try and sort it all out.

What do you think?

I feel like you're going to hurt yourself.

It's not that complex. There are faces, there are heels. Faces usually feud with heels, but sometimes faces fight faces and heels fight heels, and the fans are forced to pick a side. That's it.

Also, this isn't refreshing. Hogan fought Warrior at Mania 6, both were faces. Then in the attitude era faces fought faces and heels fought heels all the time. Not a new thing. They are just throwing matches together to lazily build up the Elimination Chamber.

 

[enviousdominous]

I think it's better for the show when they don't attempt to go against the grain when appealing to the crowd. If the crowd loves you, let them love you.

I remember Austin struggling, desperately struggling, to get the crowd to hate him. Three quarters of the crowd had "Austin 3:16" shirts on, little kids and adults were cheering for him. Austin would quip "You people stand there with your 'Austin 3:16', you can all go to Hell!" and the crowd would love him even more for it.

Zeb Coulter was ripping into Big E last Monday, and had to tell the crowd to shut up precisely because they were reacting positively to his commentary.

My best excuse for John Cena is that little kids adore him, and betraying the social contract he apparently has with little kids would be monstrous.

Sometimes it's a tricky game of "who's more over?" Christian apparently doesn't mind playing both sides of the spectrum if it'll get the crowd more into a match and help hype Daniel Bryan's popularity. Sometimes it's a situation where the crowd loves both competitors and refuses to accept that either one is worthy of boos.

It's like a Venn diagram with fifty circles, so it gets pretty vague after a while. Certain performers fit into the category of "loved regardless of anything", certain performers fall into the category of "loved only if challenged by an overtly bad person".

Sometimes someone is too good at being a bad guy to stay a bad guy, which can either elevate them to Austin level fame or get them fired for threatening the status of someone else who has already realized Austin level fame. Sometimes the crowd threatens the foundation of a program's continuity by appealing to the bad guy, maybe because they're sick of being told by a sanctimonious goody-two shoes to take their vitamins.

The WWE can no better predict who we'll be enamored with next than they can predict the weather, I'm VERY glad that the WWE doesn't predict the weather by the way.

 

[Dusty Roids]

Given the traditional heel vs. face scenarios that have applied to pro wrestling since the Jurassic period, it's refreshing to see all the situations lately that keep us guessing. Sometimes, it's hard to know who to root for and against....and I think that's terrific.

Just last night, we saw Christian vs. Daniel Bryan. Okay, we know who's going to be the fan favorite in that match, but Christian isn't anyone's idea of a heel, right? Or is he? Didn't he attack Daniel from behind at the very outset? How can he be seen as good if he ambushes the "Yes!" man?

Still, when he fought Randy Orton a week ago, Christian was fighting as a face, wasn't he? And he lost to Orton, being the only one of the Elimination Chamber crowd to lose to Randy, which makes you wonder what the plans for Christian's attitude are.

But, not so fast! Randy didn't lose to everyone from the EC match (except Christian); his contest against Sheamus was interrupted before a clear winner could emerge, right? Okay, no problem there, 'cause Sheamus is a good guy.

But wait! Is he? Don't they have a match for Sheamus against Christian this Friday on Smackdown? How can that be? They're both good guys; what could Christian possibly have against Sheamus?

Oh, that's right..... with Sheamus and Christian functioning as a tag team last Friday, Sheamus accidentally delivered a Brogue Kick to Christian, knocking him out of the match. But, if that shouldn't make a difference, why are they scheduled to fight it out this Friday? Who's the good guy here, anyway?

Then, there's Cesaro. He's a bad guy, right? After all, he just fought John Cena last night.....and every other match he's had has been against good guys, therefore making him a heel, yes?

Well, maybe not. Cesaro also fought Randy Orton.....and to our great surprise, beat him! Anyone who beats Orton has got to be a good guy, everyone knows that! Right? Well, right?

Finally, the big one: the Shield vs. the Wyatts. Who in bloody hell is the fan favorite here? How do we tell the good guys from the bad guys? Fact is, we know fully well that in a direct confrontation between the factions, the vast majority of fans are gonna cheer for the Shield, as hard as that idea would have been to accept several months ago. We even saw an example of it last night in their brief confrontation in the ring. The fans cheered Shield when Roman Reigns called out the Wyatts.

But if the Shield is going to be cheered at Elimination Chamber, they're now good guys, aren't they?

No? They're not? I don't get it.



Point is, I think the blurring of the "lines of virtue" is exciting and refreshing, especially since they're giving us so much to guess about. Sure, many folks on this forum claim to have it all figured out; they know everything that's going to happen. I sure don't, though, and I'm finding it challenging to try and sort it all out.

What do you think?

This is the new aproach to booking, there are no heels and faces anymore according to Trips and Nips.

If you ask me this idea can be very good because it gives more booking options IMO. Heel vs Heel and more Face vs face. Wrestlers can learn and practice working as either a heel or face.

However this can also be a new aproach because they clearly don't know what to do with a many of the roster.

 

[Honkey_Kong]

This is the new aproach to booking, there are no heels and faces anymore according to Trips and Nips.

If you ask me this idea can be very good because it gives more booking options IMO. Heel vs Heel and more Face vs face. Wrestlers can learn and practice working as either a heel or face.

However this can also be a new aproach because they clearly don't know what to do with a many of the roster.

Well I agree with you that we'll get more heel vs heel and face vs face. But in time I actually think we'll get something more dynamic.

One of the problems I always had with WWE product and often wrestling in general was that alliances didn't make sense. Like for instance, take 6 or 8 man tag team matches. How many times have we seen a team of faces thrown together with nothing in common other than the fact that they're babyfaces. Or that heels are together just because they're heels. It doesn't make sense that heels would find unity because they're on the dark side (logic would say they wouldn't be able to get along).

What I see happening is that when you got a face that turns heel, he's not going to break the alliances with the other faces he's got. Nor when a heel turns face that he's going to be liked by the other faces. It also makes for quick turns.

And we can have more often alliances being made for other reasons other than "well he's a good guy and he's a good guy." Now they can be more interpersonally tied together.

Of course I don't expect WWE to actually take advantage of this.