Why do you think Vince wants faces to be cheered?

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Im asking the vast majority of the IWC this: its 2017...why do you think vince wants faces to be cheered? He doesnt. Bret Hart got booed in 1997, it made for better TV. "LETS GO CENA" "CENA SUCKS" is a shirt.

Babyfaces are there to sell merch. WWE clearly understands that the guy who appeals to 6-12 year olds isnt going to appeal to 20 year olds. The mixed reactionnis more entertaining.

So again, why do so many people legitimately think WWE wants cena/reigns to get universal cheers when that hasnt been a focus in 20 years?

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Just makes more sense in terms of the story he build. You can look at his perpective as a movie maker one. You build a hero for a specific reason to be likable and stop the villain. Now, some villains are charismatic(like Joker for example) but its still in the story that he is psychopat that does awfull stuff and you need Batman to stop him. So if you have people cheer for Joker its not really the story you are trying to portray.

 

[The Gribbler]

Cena is the only person for whom I find the mixed reaction interesting. Storytelling has always been a dichotomy of sorts. Good vs Evil, the Righteous vs the Wicked. I know it seems old fashioned in 2017 to think that things have to be that black and white, but there is a reason that paradigm has existed for so long.

Just My Opinion...

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Selling merch and cheers are not mutually exclusive but the point is clear that kids buy or have their parents buy more crap. Vince ends up in a tight spot where he has two beasts to feed: he has to sell merch but at the same time fill arenas and keep people watching his television programming. I think that is where the strong IWC opinions come in. How do I continue to watch a program where I don't appreciate the main protagonist? While Vince wonders how he sells merchandise, pull in new fans, but keeps people watching his television shows that are live in time slots that are somewhat after bedtime.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

This is an interesting point, the relationship between cheers and merchandise.

As a kid, I liked what I liked. What I mean by that is I am probably one of VERY few people to have ordered a Hercules t-shirt from the WWF Magazine catalog. I would look at the t-shirt page and be disappointed when my favorite wrestlers had shirts that I just didn't think were cool. I remember there was a Don Muraco t-shirt that is probably still my favorite to this day. It had a breaking wave and navy blue sleeve and collar bands. In fact, at my first live event, I chose a Hot Rod t-shirt because it looked cool. I was 7 years old and Piper was the biggest heel in the company; but, Hulk's shirts weren't as cool to me--plus they were everywhere! Were Piper, Muraco and Herc favorites of mine? No. Did their shirts look cool to me? Yep!

Nowadays--and probably throughout the past as well--a lot of kids base their fandom or merchandise purchases on popularity. I ask my little cousins every year who their favorite sports teams are and, amazingly, their teams are always in first place. Front-running and going with the flow have a lot to do with these decisions. Do all of these kids wearing Cena hats and shirts really think of him as their favorite? I doubt it. But their friends all wear Cena stuff. Easier to join the crowd then show up at school in a Kane shirt that looks cool to that particular kid, but is nothing like what the others have and represents a much less popular wrestler.

Hulk Hogan was red and yellow forever. NWO changed that, but for a very long time, Hulk merchandise was just red and yellow. He would have several t-shirts and other items available at a time, whereas other wrestlers would have one. (This is the Brutus Beefcake shirt, take it or leave it.) But, though Hogan had several options, they were all red and yellow. When John Cena started changing colors, it struck me as odd at first, but then I realized it was brilliant. A kid with a blue and orange Cena shirt is suddenly out of the loop because his friend has the new purple and yellow Cena shirt. The Fruity Pebbles thing was memorable, but each and every color combo meant new purchases from the same kids/fans. If you had a red/yellow Hogan shirt and a new red/yellow shirt came out, you were probably in no rush to get this similar shirt. But when you're the only kid not wearing black/green Cena shirts/hats/wristbands, you're more likely (if you're one of these kids who prefers to go along with the popular trend) to go out and get the new merchandise.

Titles are viewed more as props to wrestling fans today than they were in the past. The importance of the IC belt over the years is a prime example. But, when talking about kids and their (parents') merchandise dollars, being the face of the company or being the champ is going to help you. When I was about 10 years old, I went to a live event and bought Hitman shades and a Hitman tank top. I saw no one else in the arena with either. Hart was becoming popular at this time, but still years away from becoming a singles star. (I am not trying to imply I was his first fan or anything like that. Haha. I am sure other people in the arena had these items. It just wasn't obvious--as opposed to a wave of Hogan or Cena shirts in the crowd) But, my point is I thought the shirt and glasses were so cool. I didn't care that he was a mid-card talent and nowhere near the world title. I believe if Bret was champ then, we all would have been wearing those shades. Same item, but a different circumstance.

Contrary to my red and yellow theory, you have Stone Cold who also had a bunch of shirts out, like Hulk did, and they were all black. But, I think each one of those sold well, where Hulk probably had some shirts that didn't make people want to go out and get the new one. Is it because black is cooler than red/yellow? Is it because of the era--where the badass guy was cheered, as opposed to the prayers and vitamins guy? I'm not sure. But, Hogan, Austin, Cena--all were the top dog. I think front-running is a major force in merchandising. Speaking to my era--the Golden Era--a basic, no big deal Hogan poster would outsell an awesomely-colored, with lightning bolts and bold lettering poster of...say...Tito Santana. One might look a lot cooler, but it doesn't have the popular wrestler on it, so the money goes elsewhere.

 

[LBGetBack]

I see your overall point. Don't understand the Bret Hart example though. He started getting booed as his heel turn started. He became "whiny" and the fans turned on him as his attitude changed. Then he went full heel after Mania and was a heel the rest of his time in WWF, except for when they went to Canada.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Then why does Roman's boos get edited in their later uploaded videos? If that was the case, they wouldn't be.

Obviosly since Vince is pushing Roman, Roman sells merch. It's not just because he has muscles. But bear in mind, that's not always the case. Vince pushes who he wants to push. Ryback also sold merch and was muscular. Where is he now? What about that time Vince asked Punk to turn heel, when Punk was #1 merch seller?

Vince pushes who HE WANTS and also wants that guy to be cheered.

However I'll agree with one thing. A reaction is a reaction and Roman has the loudest reactions in the entire RAW full-time active locker room. Maybe if they would stop editing the cheers and the boos, people would like Roman more.

 

[d_henderson1810]

Im asking the vast majority of the IWC this: its 2017...why do you think vince wants faces to be cheered? He doesnt. Bret Hart got booed in 1997, it made for better TV. "LETS GO CENA" "CENA SUCKS" is a shirt.

Babyfaces are there to sell merch. WWE clearly understands that the guy who appeals to 6-12 year olds isnt going to appeal to 20 year olds. The mixed reactionnis more entertaining.

So again, why do so many people legitimately think WWE wants cena/reigns to get universal cheers when that hasnt been a focus in 20 years?

Vince wants faces cheered because it has worked for time in memoriam- the good guys v the bad guys.

Jesus v Satan, cowboys v indians, Batman v The Joker, U.S.A. v U.S.S.R.

As hard as it will be for millenials to believe this, once upon a time, people wanted to see the good guy win. Most movies, TV shows and stories involved a hero, a villan, and wanting to see at the end the hero give the villan what he has coming to him. People used to cheer "The good guy" and boo the "bad guy". People didn't choose to boo John Wayne, for example, because he was "the good guy" and everyone got behind the Duke, as he shot it out against a tribe of indians or a black-hatted villan who hit town. People didn't want to see John Wayne to "be flawed" and the villan be on top. If this happened, it angered fans more, and they really wanted Wayne's character to get revenge.

My question is this:-Why do today's society want to embrace the bad guy.

Today's society wants all their heroes to have clay feet, for celebrities and sportspeople to fall, and for Superman to be dark and broody, rather than a superhero boy scout Christopher Reeve type. Hell, there were people in Western society who wanted the U.S.A. to lose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

The fact is, you changed! It's your fault, not Vince's or anyone else.

What, do you think that cheering a good guy means that you can't think a bad guy is cool as well?

I am a "Star Wars" fan, and my favourite all-time villan was Darth Vader. Dark, sinister, intimidating. Yet that didn't mean that I wanted him to kill Luke, Leia and Han, and defeat the Rebellion.

Also, I loved Heath Ledger's version of the Joker, but that didn't mean I wanted him to defeat the Dark Knight.

You can think that a "villan" is cool, yet still want to boo him, and hope that he gets his just desserts.

Didn't it annoy you when the NWO (cool heels)seemed to get the better of Sting? Weren't you happy when Goldberg bested Hogan on "Nitro"?

Look, many of you boo because it is the "cool" thing to do, you want to troll Vince, and say to him "We know better than you what sells", and a delusion that the fans are the stars of the show and if they yell out abuse and cheer against what is going on in the ring (post-Wrestlemania Raw crowd, I'm looking at you) and hijack the show, that they will be listened to, and that Vince will fall at their feet saying "I'm not worthy" and do any ridiculous idea any fan comes up with.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I disagree with the notion Vince wants baby faces to get a mixed reaction. What would you rather have, someone who sells t-shirts to children only, or someone who sells merchandise to all fans? If Vince really wanted a mixed reaction, Roman Reigns would still be the champion and the featured guy on every pay-per-view, or network special, whatever you want to call it. I think they're still searching for the guy who will be universally loved. Is that possible in 2017? I'm not sure it is.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

I think they're still searching for the guy who will be universally loved. Is that possible in 2017? I'm not sure it is.

I think you're right. I don't see how it is possible.

Of course, we can use the logic that in today's world of "everyone having a voice" online, it is harder to pretend that someone is universally loved. Back in the Hogan days, there were certainly people who were sick of his routine sooner than others--or probably even those who never bought into him. But that group was greatly outnumbered, thus not heard from in the days of controlled feedback. Now, those people have many ways to voice their displeasure and, depending on the way it is done, it can pick up steam once several people agree. In 1987, if a guy from Kansas, a guy from Ohio and 100 other people from 100 other places wrote to WWF Magazine and said they were tired of Hogan's act, WWF would see the thousands of letters of Hogan support and simply ignore/destroy the letters of disapproval--"they don't exist, everyone loves Hogan". Today, those guys who shared the same disapproving opinion can gather on a forum and become a louder voice. They may still be the minority, but they aren't necessarily as easily dismissed or ignored.

Another reason is that it seems that each year there are more and more people who make sure to boo who they are told to like. There is not always a legit reason behind it. I think this bandwagon is being hopped on more than so many others. Reigns was the man a few years ago, but then he was being pushed too quickly and people started hating him. All of these people were bothered at the same time? "Not bloody likely!" It is more a case of "the crowd at RAW the last few weeks has booed this guy. We'll do the same when they're in our hometown next week." It's almost like the average wrestling event attendee would rather do anything to possibly be heard, run home to their computer (or check their phone during the show) and see if the world is talking about their chant or their response to the performances. Thousands and thousands of people across the country, at the exact same time, all decided it was time for Big Show to retire?? No. But "please retire" or whatever the chant was, had become something that was recognized. The "What?" chant is another example. Do this many people still find "What?" funny or useful 15-20 years later? I don't see how they could. But it's what the other crowds do, so we'll do it.

So much of the reaction of the live crowds and those who write on the internet seems disingenuous. It mostly seems they have decided how they will react, despite what is put on in front of them. "This is awesome!" Is it? Is every match with false finishes awesome? Is every match that goes longer than one segment awesome? No. But that chant will be heard every single time. Is it because all crowds think longer than usual matches are automatically awesome? Or is it because they heard a "this is awesome" chant on TV and want to be part of one themselves, regardless of sincerity?

Between not being able to as easily ignore the minority's opinions and the predetermined decision to go against the grain as a "fan", there seems to be no way to have anyone please the majority...or at least the non-silent minority that is perceived as the majority. Today, Donald Trump is being inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. Not to get political--I am only using this as an example--but the anti-Trump noise was booming leading up to the election; so, it was perceived as an easy victory for Hillary Clinton. But, just because her supporters were louder, doesn't necessarily mean there are more of them. The squeaky wheel may get the grease, but the other 3 are rolling along just fine.

The point I am trying to make is regardless of how many people think one way or the other, the negatives are always louder than the positives. Who is more likely to go on Yelp? A customer thrilled with their dinner or someone who found a hair in their food and is looking for a way to voice their displeasure? The negatives are always louder, so you have to take that into consideration when choosing a place to eat. Feedback will always lean towards bad experiences because those who are pleased go about their day and those who are wronged look for anyway to feel better. A universally loved superstar--or universally loved anything--is harder to come by than ever.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Simply put, it'S the old school way of thinking. The fact of the matter is that WWE right now as multiple fans groups and it has to found a way to play to all these differents fans groups.

The hell vs babyface dynamic i think is more for the kids and families that actually buy a lot of merchandise compare to your typical IWC fans so in that sense vince will look at the numbers and watches what works and what doesn't, that's why somebody like roman reigns, even through he's getting mostly boos is still push as a babyface and vince doesn'T cares about the mixed reaction the guy is getting, while other gets push as heels because they make more money as heels then face.

It's pretty much the classic case of who's making money for the company in what roles. Vince really doesn'T cares if you get boos or cheer as long as your making money while doing the character he'S given you.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

I really don't understand this argument. Do you really think WWE wants their top face booed? Faces are cheered and heels are booed. That's pro wrestling 101. That's how it should be. It makes for good storytelling. Good overcomes bad and wins in the end. That's why I'm such a big fan of wrestling.

Maybe WWE doesn't care, but they definitely should. This mindset creates a vibe of "we don't care what the fans think, we just want to make money". Money is the top priority, but you give the fans what they want. They don't want Reigns, so push someone else as the top guy.

 

[New Hot Fed]

Bret didn't get booed in 1997, he got booed when he turned heel.

You think Vince doesn't want faces to be cheered? He wants to but what his views as his money-makers people are rejecting.

But he's not worried about it cause in the case of Cena, even if he got mixed reactions, parents and kids have always bought his merchandise.

Better question is, why does he wants his heels to be cheered? Cause they have given up in the case of their two Champs AJ and KO.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I see your overall point. Don't understand the Bret Hart example though. He started getting booed as his heel turn started. He became "whiny" and the fans turned on him as his attitude changed. Then he went full heel after Mania and was a heel the rest of his time in WWF, except for when they went to Canada.

his heel turn happened because he was getting booed and traditional "heels" were getting cheered.


Wrestling is a unique art. You cant boo superman in the theater and watch it affect him. You can in wrestling. We havent had traditional heel/face in 20 years.

Plus lets be real, nothing except lower merch sales would happen if they turned reigns/cena heel and Styles face. Just an opposite reaction but still a split one.

Thats what happens when you dont have a homogeneous audience in a live performance art.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I really don't understand this argument. Do you really think WWE wants their top face booed? Faces are cheered and heels are booed. That's pro wrestling 101. That's how it should be. It makes for good storytelling. Good overcomes bad and wins in the end. That's why I'm such a big fan of wrestling.

Maybe WWE doesn't care, but they definitely should. This mindset creates a vibe of "we don't care what the fans think, we just want to make money". Money is the top priority, but you give the fans what they want. They don't want Reigns, so push someone else as the top guy.

Why should they care? The audience is diverse. Younger audience buys merch, older audience likes heels.

Really think. When have older fans, in the last 20 years, EVER preferred faces? Pretty much never. The fans who buy merch want Reigns and the fans who dont love to boo him.

It has been my theory for a long time that guys like Cena/Reigns are "heels" to a decent share of the audience. The IWC is pretty much going to cheer heels and boo faces regardless. So why give a shit? It gets a louder reaction and sells more merch.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Bret didn't get booed in 1997, he got booed when he turned heel.

You think Vince doesn't want faces to be cheered? He wants to but what his views as his money-makers people are rejecting.

But he's not worried about it cause in the case of Cena, even if he got mixed reactions, parents and kids have always bought his merchandise.

Better question is, why does he wants his heels to be cheered? Cause they have given up in the case of their two Champs AJ and KO.

watch 1997 raw on the network, he certainly was getting boos while heels were getting cheered. This is why the turn happened.
Maybe the goal is noise? Listen to any shoot. Thats all they say. "The worst thing is silence". The IWC hasnt consistently booed a heel in a long time. What kimd of noise doesnt matter anymore because every guy on the roster from Miz to Styles to Rusev to Corbin get some level of mixed reaction. But as long as noise is made, then they are doing well.

If you dont like Reigns, dont make any noise. Otherwise, he's kind of working you (Cena has been doing this for years).

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I disagree with the notion Vince wants baby faces to get a mixed reaction. What would you rather have, someone who sells t-shirts to children only, or someone who sells merchandise to all fans? If Vince really wanted a mixed reaction, Roman Reigns would still be the champion and the featured guy on every pay-per-view, or network special, whatever you want to call it. I think they're still searching for the guy who will be universally loved. Is that possible in 2017? I'm not sure it is.

Exactly, its not possible, so why force it? With so much more fan segmentation, more guys split the pie. You dont have a hogan being the only guy selling merch. Everyone has a different appeal. Its more diverse and (imo) that makes it so much better.

A straight face/heel scenario is boring. "Lets go babyface" "babyface sucks" is a lot more interesting. Its why X Men is so much better than Superman; and in wrestling, its magnified by an audience.

 

[RedRegan1005]

The mixed reaction argument has only really worked for John Cena, because it turned into a true 50/50 split that was also a strong reaction that has lead to some amazing atmospheres when Cena was paired with someone who the anti-cena audience was really hot for, like CM Punk and AJ Styles. Now WWE wants to use the 50/50 excuse with Reigns as a cop out. However with Reigns its not a hot crowd with a split reaction. A lot of times to me it seems more like a third of boos, a third of cheers, and a third of I could care less.

WWE lucked out with the John Cena enigma, and I don't see it happening again. Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, The Rock, all sold merch and were way over with cheers as baby faces. Pro Wrestling usually works best when you have a talented entertaining heel who the crowd loves to hate, and a talented entertaining face who the crowd loves to cheer as he gives that heel what they had coming. History has showed that it usually makes the most money, and the best product.

 

[CyberPunk]

Nah! I don't buy for a second that Vince wants split reactions for his faces. The audience may have changed over time but the heel/face dynamic has remained the same. If they really wanted their faces to get mixed reactions, there wouldn't be a need to edit past footages like we see today.

In 2017, it's really difficult to find a really loved face and a very hated heel. The last true babyface was Daniel Bryan. Since then, not many (if any) have been able to match his pops. Daniel Bryan's case does show that it's possible to build a face like him, but it also shows that it has to be organic and can't be pushed down audience's throat.

 

[Radical]

Looking back at the most popular era in pro wrestling, the Attitude Era (with the Monday Night Wars with WCW) you can see that while the top faces get massive cheers and positive reactions, the top heels can often get a 'respect' cheer when their music hits or what they do in a match.

Kurt Angle was a 'heel' in 2001 vs top babyface The Rock, but you could hear a bit of a cheer or at least a mixed reaction when his music hit because fans appreciated his abilities and character that was charismatic and engaging. And actually appreciated his ability to get them to boo him.

Now, that's not always the case, sometimes you need heels who are just really heelish and fans love to boo and always boo. Like Right to Censor. But, if that's happening that means they are doing their job. They aren't supposed to be liked at all. In fact, they are there so fans love to hate them and see them get their ass whooped.

But when it comes to top stars in pro wrestling, I think what works best is having a babyface that the fans truly connect with and like but also having a heel who the fans appreciate their abilities to cause fans to boo them and appreciate their abilities in the ring.


So with Roman Reigns it is a weird situation. You see him in a situation where he is getting beat down by (supposed to be) heel Kevin Owens and Chris Jericho but you can hear cheering. That's not really supposed to happen. Then, Reigns comes storming back, hits Superman Punches and you hear that mixed reaction of usually some women and children cheering and a lot of men booing because they actually like Owens and Jericho better.


I think that the (mostly) men that are booing Reigns would appreciate him more as a very HEELISH heel so that more fans could get behind the booing of Reigns and he could embrace it and let wrestlers that the fans like rise up more naturally into being babyfaces.


Imagine, Reigns just turning hardcore heel one day. Betraying a face like Rollins or Zayn and viciously attacking them, then coming out the next night and spitting back at the fans about all the lack of respect and how he will not be stopped because now he doesn't care about the fans, only himself.

Then, as heel Reigns, he can actually build a faction around him, the Roman Empire, if you will and make kind of a safety net for him. But, instead of being a cowardly heel he still wins matches but does it with heel tactics (interference, using weapons, holding the rope, etc.) and the fans will be itching for a top babyface to finally knock him down ...

perhaps similar to the rivalry between Triple H and Stone Cold in terms of intensity.





In summary, I DO think Vince wants faces to be cheered. It is the nature of what has worked in storytelling (including pro wrestling) for years and I think works a lot better than any sort of 'grey area' storytelling where heros and villains aren't as well defined.

 

[Navi]

The mixed reaction argument has only really worked for John Cena, because it turned into a true 50/50 split that was also a strong reaction that has lead to some amazing atmospheres when Cena was paired with someone who the anti-cena audience was really hot for, like CM Punk and AJ Styles. Now WWE wants to use the 50/50 excuse with Reigns as a cop out. However with Reigns its not a hot crowd with a split reaction. A lot of times to me it seems more like a third of boos, a third of cheers, and a third of I could care less.

WWE lucked out with the John Cena enigma, and I don't see it happening again. Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, The Rock, all sold merch and were way over with cheers as baby faces. Pro Wrestling usually works best when you have a talented entertaining heel who the crowd loves to hate, and a talented entertaining face who the crowd loves to cheer as he gives that heel what they had coming. History has showed that it usually makes the most money, and the best product.

This and then some. The biggest difference between Cena and Reigns is that Cena was massively over before the boo's started happening. Even now I don't think that most of the people who are booing him really mean it. Cena hasn't changed his gimmick in years because it does sell at the merchandise stands. Where an adult will buy a shirt, a kid will get his parents to buy a shirt, hat, wristbands, necklace and towel. In other words the whole nine yards. An adult will spend about $25.00 the kids want three times as much, and the parents buy it. So the WWE is quite happy with Cena staying as he is because he is one of their biggest cash cows, and will most likely be till he retires.

Reigns on the other hand sells to women and some of the kids. I see more kids dressed like Cena than Reigns. Although at SS a lot of women were wearing Bayley shirts so her stuff is starting to move also. Some fans are desperate for another Daniel Bryan and they've found that Bayley fits that role. With her being a lifelong fan like some of them, they can identify with her. The more they play that up the more shirts fly out the door.

Vince might have wanted Reigns as the next John Cena, but the fans don't, and you don't want your next top babyface getting boo'd out of the building every night. When you have to edit out the boo's that should tell you something. I'm just wondering if those that do boo, I'm not one of them more the type who sits quietly, stopped doing it tomorrow, just how loud would the cheers actually be. I don't think they would be as loud as some think they would.

 

[HeenanGorilla]

Something just occurred to me and I am curious what you guys think...

It is certainly the day and age we live in that affects the way people react to the traditional faces/heels, no question. But, might another reason be the difference in the performance of today's heels?

I can't speak to wrestling further back than the Golden Era. I know of names, feuds, title reigns and other things that happened before my time, but I didn't see it for myself. I know only by reading, which is great, but doesn't always paint an accurate picture. So, I won't speak to heels of the early 80s-70s or further back--maybe some of you can help with that.

But, I was thinking specifically of Rowdy Roddy Piper, who was the top heel when I was introduced to the WWF in the mid 80s. Roddy could (and did) get the crowd so fired up against him with his antics and behavior. From what I see, he is still listed at the top or near the top of every all-time heel list on the internet. Now, think of Roddy's in-ring performance. What were his signature moves? Could he have ever put on a 5-star match? His brilliance as a top heel had very little to do with his wrestling, in my opinion. Think of other heels during that era--Honky Tonk Man as another example--and try to think of what his moves were. Or think of a really great wrestling match of his. I can't think of either. His heat was based on behavior and antics, not wrestling talent, and the crowd hated this guy. His sneaky and immoral ways of hanging on to the IC belt for so long is what made him a top heel, not his wrestling talent.

Now, there are exceptions, as the Million Dollar Man also tops many all-time heel lists and Ted DiBiase was no slouch in the ring. But, I am wondering if the vastly improved in-ring wrestling talent of today's heels has anything to do with them being harder to hate these days. I still think there are people who will boo the faces and cheer the heels for no other reason than wanting to throw a wrench into the plans of what they perceive as being told what to do. But, for other people who haven't quite made up their mind and are open to cheering the traditional face and booing the traditional heel when appropriate, are today's heels easier to like (or harder to hate) because they are so much better in the ring overall?

Again, it is a different time and I understand that. But, in a vacuum, is there any merit to the idea that a heel who does eye gouges and below the belt shots to gain the advantage, followed by basic kicks and punches and body slams, while blowing snots at the crowd or negatively gesturing to the crowd or praising Iran or the USSR (the heel of yesteryear) rather than a heel who puts on a wrestling clinic while sprinkling in some heel antics (several heels of today) had a better chance of being booed heavily? Basically, does the superior in-ring performance of today's wrestlers make it easier to like a character you are not "supposed to"?

 

[ShinChan]

Something just occurred to me and I am curious what you guys think...

It is certainly the day and age we live in that affects the way people react to the traditional faces/heels, no question. But, might another reason be the difference in the performance of today's heels?

I can't speak to wrestling further back than the Golden Era. I know of names, feuds, title reigns and other things that happened before my time, but I didn't see it for myself. I know only by reading, which is great, but doesn't always paint an accurate picture. So, I won't speak to heels of the early 80s-70s or further back--maybe some of you can help with that.

But, I was thinking specifically of Rowdy Roddy Piper, who was the top heel when I was introduced to the WWF in the mid 80s. Roddy could (and did) get the crowd so fired up against him with his antics and behavior. From what I see, he is still listed at the top or near the top of every all-time heel list on the internet. Now, think of Roddy's in-ring performance. What were his signature moves? Could he have ever put on a 5-star match? His brilliance as a top heel had very little to do with his wrestling, in my opinion. Think of other heels during that era--Honky Tonk Man as another example--and try to think of what his moves were. Or think of a really great wrestling match of his. I can't think of either. His heat was based on behavior and antics, not wrestling talent, and the crowd hated this guy. His sneaky and immoral ways of hanging on to the IC belt for so long is what made him a top heel, not his wrestling talent.

Now, there are exceptions, as the Million Dollar Man also tops many all-time heel lists and Ted DiBiase was no slouch in the ring. But, I am wondering if the vastly improved in-ring wrestling talent of today's heels has anything to do with them being harder to hate these days. I still think there are people who will boo the faces and cheer the heels for no other reason than wanting to throw a wrench into the plans of what they perceive as being told what to do. But, for other people who haven't quite made up their mind and are open to cheering the traditional face and booing the traditional heel when appropriate, are today's heels easier to like (or harder to hate) because they are so much better in the ring overall?

Again, it is a different time and I understand that. But, in a vacuum, is there any merit to the idea that a heel who does eye gouges and below the belt shots to gain the advantage, followed by basic kicks and punches and body slams, while blowing snots at the crowd or negatively gesturing to the crowd or praising Iran or the USSR (the heel of yesteryear) rather than a heel who puts on a wrestling clinic while sprinkling in some heel antics (several heels of today) had a better chance of being booed heavily? Basically, does the superior in-ring performance of today's wrestlers make it easier to like a character you are not "supposed to"?

I agree with you.

The superior in-ring performance does tend to make someone like me respect a wrestler even if he's a heel. Examples can be Kevin Owens, AJ Styles or Samoa Joe. These three are great in the ring and are heels too. Do they get booed like a heel? Nopes, they don't because the audience respects them now.

A couple of days ago, I read what AJ Styles said about it. He said that he makes sure to do everything he can do to get heel heat but still the respect overcomes the alignment of the wrestler.

These three can still get enormous heel heat if they screw an over sympathetic babyface like Daniel Bryan. But against Cena or Reigns? Not viable.

 

[Navi]

Something just occurred to me and I am curious what you guys think...

It is certainly the day and age we live in that affects the way people react to the traditional faces/heels, no question. But, might another reason be the difference in the performance of today's heels?

I can't speak to wrestling further back than the Golden Era. I know of names, feuds, title reigns and other things that happened before my time, but I didn't see it for myself. I know only by reading, which is great, but doesn't always paint an accurate picture. So, I won't speak to heels of the early 80s-70s or further back--maybe some of you can help with that.

But, I was thinking specifically of Rowdy Roddy Piper, who was the top heel when I was introduced to the WWF in the mid 80s. Roddy could (and did) get the crowd so fired up against him with his antics and behavior. From what I see, he is still listed at the top or near the top of every all-time heel list on the internet. Now, think of Roddy's in-ring performance. What were his signature moves? Could he have ever put on a 5-star match? His brilliance as a top heel had very little to do with his wrestling, in my opinion. Think of other heels during that era--Honky Tonk Man as another example--and try to think of what his moves were. Or think of a really great wrestling match of his. I can't think of either. His heat was based on behavior and antics, not wrestling talent, and the crowd hated this guy. His sneaky and immoral ways of hanging on to the IC belt for so long is what made him a top heel, not his wrestling talent.

Now, there are exceptions, as the Million Dollar Man also tops many all-time heel lists and Ted DiBiase was no slouch in the ring. But, I am wondering if the vastly improved in-ring wrestling talent of today's heels has anything to do with them being harder to hate these days. I still think there are people who will boo the faces and cheer the heels for no other reason than wanting to throw a wrench into the plans of what they perceive as being told what to do. But, for other people who haven't quite made up their mind and are open to cheering the traditional face and booing the traditional heel when appropriate, are today's heels easier to like (or harder to hate) because they are so much better in the ring overall?

Again, it is a different time and I understand that. But, in a vacuum, is there any merit to the idea that a heel who does eye gouges and below the belt shots to gain the advantage, followed by basic kicks and punches and body slams, while blowing snots at the crowd or negatively gesturing to the crowd or praising Iran or the USSR (the heel of yesteryear) rather than a heel who puts on a wrestling clinic while sprinkling in some heel antics (several heels of today) had a better chance of being booed heavily? Basically, does the superior in-ring performance of today's wrestlers make it easier to like a character you are not "supposed to"?

A lot of what you say here is true. But I also believe it comes down to three things, respect for their performance, an ability to identify with the wrestler and just the overall likability. Each performer can go out into the ring and do the exact same moves, but it depends on how the fans perceive them.

Take the Miz for example. The guy is a natural heel. He doesn't even have to open his mouth and he's getting major heat. He comes off as a total wanker to everyone but his wife. Even his entrance is enough to make you want to hate him, and some do. Personally he's great at what he does because it doesn't seem forced, he does it so naturally it's almost scary. I've seen him on other TV shows and in interviews and he seems like a genuinely nice guy, but in the ring he has a total change, and even though I know he's a nice guy I want to see him get beat.

Daniel Bryan was a natural face. The fans identified with him like he was their brother or next door neighbour. Everyone knows someone like him. He's not a big guy but worked his ass off to get where he was, and people went along with it. When he was trying to be a heel it didn't feel natural simply because that's not the kind of person he is. A lot of it has to do with what and who you are as a person.

And maybe that's the reason some of the wrestlers Vince wants to get over can't, the fans whether they belong to the IWC or not, realize that it's not natural and turn away from it. They might want to support a Daniel Bryan, Bayley or Miz, you know someone who doesn't make them feel like they are being fooled.