Heel champion or babyface champion?

["Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay]

It seems that in the history of the industry, only a handful of times has the fighting babyface world heavyweight champion properly worked - Hulk Hogan, Bruno (presumably, I didn't watch at the time) and Austin. Austin isn't even that great an example because his reigns weren't particularly long.

I know there are shades of grey here - sometimes the product needs different things, like when the nWo were around a shady heel champion was kind of what was needed to build to Starrcade '97, and in the '80s Hogan was so hot that taking the belt off him would be ludicrous.

So I'm asking you, my fellow armchair bookers, what you would choose in this situation. Personally, I much prefer a long-term heel champion, especially one that cheats and escapes challengers on a regular basis but is eventually cornered by a babyface who's just catching fire and is forced to lose his title. The Attitude Era was quite good at moments like these, where the heel's shenanigans finally caught up with him a la Backlash 2000 when there's shitloads of interference but the face comes out on top anyway. I'm also a big fan of turns while champion, so someone can win the belt as a righteous babyface and then eventually turn heel - Punk's reign for me never got boring because he spent roughly half of it as face and then half of it as heel, meaning his challengers could always be changing.

[Emmet Russell]

The courageous babyface chasing down the cowardly heel for the title he doesn't deserve is a timeless story. You're right when you say only a few face title reigns have ever really succeeded past a certain point. Austins reign was very powerful on me as a kid because of all the odds being against him thanks to people like Vince, Foley, Kane, Rock, Taker etc. It really got me behind Austin.

Although it wasn't a financial success, I did really enjoy Shawn Michaels reign in '96 as well. Shawn was my favourite wrestler since I started watching in '94 and getting to see him beat Bret Hart - who I hated - was an incredible moment. Every time he defended the title I was legitimately worried he was going to lose it & I went crazy each time he successfully retained.

[An Old Villain]

Strong babyfaces make money, strong heels make strong babyfaces.

Egg and chicken.

[Deleted]

I was a big fan of Bret Hart's babyface "fighting champion" gimmick, which was really something different in an era where you really saw the main belt defended.

Aug 18, 2013 10:53:06 GMT -5 An Old Villain said:

Strong babyfaces make money, strong heels make strong babyfaces.

Egg and chicken.

I agree.

It's always nice to see the belt on guys who seem to deserve it like Foley or Bryan, as compared to long, boring heel reigns like Del Rio, HHH or JBL. But on the other hand, you can have a dull-as-dirt Cena or Rock reign or a fun heel reign. I guess I just don't like boring champions, regardless of alignment.

[mrjl]

Aug 18, 2013 10:48:42 GMT -5 Emmet Russell said:

The courageous babyface chasing down the cowardly heel for the title he doesn't deserve is a timeless story. You're right when you say only a few face title reigns have ever really succeeded past a certain point. Austins reign was very powerful on me as a kid because of all the odds being against him thanks to people like Vince, Foley, Kane, Rock, Taker etc. It really got me behind Austin.

Although it wasn't a financial success, I did really enjoy Shawn Michaels reign in '96 as well. Shawn was my favourite wrestler since I started watching in '94 and getting to see him beat Bret Hart - who I hated - was an incredible moment. Every time he defended the title I was legitimately worried he was going to lose it & I went crazy each time he successfully retained.

that's because only a few companies have tried it. And the problem with the heel champion being chased as timeless story is that stories END. You try to keep a heel champ being chased eventually all your babyfaces look like fools, see Sting; the stupidest man in wrestling.

The one company that embraced babyface champ destroyed all the competition.

[thecrusherwi]

I don't know which is better for business, but I've always preferred the strong babyface champion. Maybe it's because I grew up on Hulk Hogan, but I always find myself getting maddeningly frustrated with a heel champion that cheats and retains for months and months. And not in a "I REALLY want to see Luger get his shot at Hollywood Hogan and beat him" way, but more of a "f*** this shit" way.

I think that's why I never quite liked WCW as much as the WWF. They would have amazing shows like Starrcade 88 or Great American Bash 96 and it's so much fun, but then the heel world champ comes out and beats a mega babyface in the main event and I feel so deflated. WCW would do this all the time to the point that even after a babyface win you knew some SOB heel would win the title again in a couple months and hold it for a year. The WWF would always have their good guys standing tall at the end. The positive excitement will always get me more interested in the future than the frustration.

[Emmet Russell]

Aug 18, 2013 11:06:48 GMT -5 mrjl said:

Aug 18, 2013 10:48:42 GMT -5 Emmet Russell said:

The courageous babyface chasing down the cowardly heel for the title he doesn't deserve is a timeless story. You're right when you say only a few face title reigns have ever really succeeded past a certain point. Austins reign was very powerful on me as a kid because of all the odds being against him thanks to people like Vince, Foley, Kane, Rock, Taker etc. It really got me behind Austin.

Although it wasn't a financial success, I did really enjoy Shawn Michaels reign in '96 as well. Shawn was my favourite wrestler since I started watching in '94 and getting to see him beat Bret Hart - who I hated - was an incredible moment. Every time he defended the title I was legitimately worried he was going to lose it & I went crazy each time he successfully retained.

that's because only a few companies have tried it. And the problem with the heel champion being chased as timeless story is that stories END. You try to keep a heel champ being chased eventually all your babyfaces look like fools, see Sting; the stupidest man in wrestling.

The one company that embraced babyface champ destroyed all the competition.

It's definitely possible for a story to go on too long -- HHH's 2003 reign of terror for example. When it was time to end it though & summon in a new era he did so when he lost the title to Batista. It's just a shame Steiner, Nash, Booker, RVD, Goldberg, Kane etc all looked like fools during that HHH reign.

On the other side of the coin though JBL's title reign was much the same as HHH's in many ways, but I feel produced better results. JBL speaked out so many victories over people that were obviously his superiors & didn't bury anyone along the way like HHH did -- pinning Booker with one hand after a pedigree & 30 seconds of wait on the biggest stage of them all. In the end he dropped it to another up-and-comer: John Cena.

Both ended the same way but I feel JBL was what a successful heel champion should be while HHH did the opposite & was too dominant over top-caliber talent

[mrjl]

Aug 18, 2013 11:21:28 GMT -5 Emmet Russell said:

Aug 18, 2013 11:06:48 GMT -5 mrjl said:

that's because only a few companies have tried it. And the problem with the heel champion being chased as timeless story is that stories END. You try to keep a heel champ being chased eventually all your babyfaces look like fools, see Sting; the stupidest man in wrestling.

The one company that embraced babyface champ destroyed all the competition.

It's definitely possible for a story to go on too long -- HHH's 2003 reign of terror for example. When it was time to end it though & summon in a new era he did so when he lost the title to Batista. It's just a shame Steiner, Nash, Booker, RVD, Goldberg, Kane etc all looked like fools during that HHH reign.

On the other side of the coin though JBL's title reign was much the same as HHH's in many ways, but I feel produced better results. JBL speaked out so many victories over people that were obviously his superiors & didn't bury anyone along the way like HHH did -- pinning Booker with one hand after a pedigree & 30 seconds of wait on the biggest stage of them all. In the end he dropped it to another up-and-comer: John Cena.

Both ended the same way but I feel JBL was what a successful heel champion should be while HHH did the opposite & was too dominant over top-caliber talent

I'm not really talking about storylines or individual reigns going on to long. I'm talking about things like Sting wins the World Title from Ric Flair after being tossed from the Horsemen and injuring his knee. This super babyface Sting loses the World Title to... Ric Flair because WCW does heel champions being chased stories, not strong babyfaces defending.

In an unending story going back to the status quo so you can launch your next story undermines your previous story.

[mrjl]

Aug 18, 2013 11:13:36 GMT -5 thecrusherwi said:

I don't know which is better for business, but I've always preferred the strong babyface champion. Maybe it's because I grew up on Hulk Hogan, but I always find myself getting maddeningly frustrated with a heel champion that cheats and retains for months and months. And not in a "I REALLY want to see Luger get his shot at Hollywood Hogan and beat him" way, but more of a "f*** this shit" way.

I think that's why I never quite liked WCW as much as the WWF. They would have amazing shows like Starrcade 88 or Great American Bash 96 and it's so much fun, but then the heel world champ comes out and beats a mega babyface in the main event and I feel so deflated. WCW would do this all the time to the point that even after a babyface win you knew some SOB heel would win the title again in a couple months and hold it for a year. The WWF would always have their good guys standing tall at the end. The positive excitement will always get me more interested in the future than the frustration.

pretty much exactly how I feel.

[g1megatronfan]

Babyface champions not named Cena.

Personally, I think 99% of heels in wrestling are stupid. They don't entertain me to the point where I would plunk down $60.00 just to watch them cheat to hold their titles. I am so much happier keeping the money. For example: there is no way in hell I would give you a nickle to watch either Buh-Buh Ray Dudley or Alberto Del Rio defend their belts simply because they aren't entertaining to me. I'm not entertained by decent/mediocre matches that end cheaply.

Now...there was a time I would pay to watch Steve Austin or The Rock because they entertained me. I felt like I got my money's worth and had fun watching them defend the belts. Right now I would probably chip in at the very least with some buddies to watch Bryan, Punk or even Ziggler in main events for the belt. It's just my personal choice. To me...most heels in wrestling don't really grab my attention and make me want to hate them. They just make me wish they would go away.

I can only take so many lame generic insults or cheating before I get bored.

[Djm Doesn't Find You Funny]

I find heel champions to be maddeningly frustrating, and they almost always keep the title too long for me.

Babyface champions, even Cena, at least triumph over the forces of evil and chicanery, which isn't a bad thing.

Unless the babyface is a total jerk who is only a babyface because he "entertains the crowd" by being a total jerk. I like my babyfaces to be, ya know, decent people.

[Sam Punk]

I watch wrestling for a diversion from the real world. If I wanted to see heels succeed then I'd just watch the evening news. Wrestling is more fun to watch when there's a babyface champ on top.

[Chairman of the Board]

This one is easy.

Heel.

As said earlier a good heel will help build a good babyface.

How can you sell tickets to watch some guy win cleanly every show? Personally I would start with a heel and tease a few different babyfaces dethroning him. Then just go with whoever the crowd likes the most.

Starting with a babyface would be super boring.

[Deleted]

Just to b different, I'm going to say a 'tweener champion.

[DrizzlinShytes]

I think the ideal is you mix it up, but long reigns in general are preferable to hot potato with the belt. Long reigns allow you to build guys up and make the matches bigger and more important and title changes become more epic.

The right heel/face can both have plenty of great storylines and matches. The Flair model and Hogan model made plenty of money at the same time. Have the heel build to losing to your next big face then give the face a big run where it culminates in putting over some new heel or have a big heel turn by the face or have a big heel turn by one of the face's top allies (Larry Z against Bruno). Then maybe have a bit of chaos, then have a heel hold the belt for a while as you build the next face...etc etc.

[Hit Girl]

I prefer a mix of the two. Alternating between periods of a superhero vanquishing villains, and a powerful villain who keeps the hero chasing.

[SEAN CARLESS]

Aug 18, 2013 11:06:48 GMT -5 mrjl said:

the problem with the heel champion being chased as timeless story is that stories END. You try to keep a heel champ being chased eventually all your babyfaces look like fools, see Sting; the stupidest man in wrestling.

Agreed. WCW's main problem was that they didn't change with the times. In the early to mid 80's, Flair's NWA Title was basically a touring belt. He worked all over the country, defending it against local heroes and hometown hopefuls and drew good money. People plunked down cash in whatever bodunk town Flair was working to see THEIR guy beat him. And often, Flair would do jobs on the sly for these guys so people would think they saw a recognized Title change. It was a good business model based on the fact that Flair, the touring champ heel, had so many guys to work with, but wasn't seen doing so by a national televised audience.

By 1988 however, under the ownership of Turner, NWA/WCW went more TV-centric. Flair didn't tour anymore. He worked WCW towns on WCW shows. So, him getting the belt over and over made no sense once they found a guy -- like Sring--who could carry the babyface ball for good.

Every other territory built their promotion, for the most part, around one top babyface. They were seen by the same eyeballs and fans week in and week out after all, and couldn't do the Flair shtick. Whether Vince sr with Bruno, Pedro or Backlund, Fritz with his sons, Graham with Dusty or whomever, these promoters thought the opposite, and built up heels to feed their babyfaces. And it worked. And it's a model that still is the most financially rewarding to this day.

Every long term heel run bar Superstar Graham in '76 drew pretty damn poorly during its run in WWWF/WWF/WWE. They do their best business when a top, beloved babyface fends off a slew of big baddies. And when they find a new hero, they have a transitional heel take the belt from him just fast enough to transition to their new guy.

So, ya, babyface is best. Because, really, you pay to see a hero win. You buy a Superman or Batman comic to see them best bad guys after being tested. You don't buy a Lex Luthor comic where he keeps finding ways to f*** over your heroes for years.

[The Masked Heel WAS WRONG]

I think it's a case by case basis. I think guys like Hogan and Cena are better as title holders than title chasers due to their size and how they are built up. Guys like Bryan and Punk are better chasers as they are more vulnerable and it's easier to invest in them to see them trying to get the title.

[rnrk supports BLM]

Variety is the spice of life. Keep mixing it up; sometimes you get big babyface reigns, sometimes it's a dominant heel on top for a while. That way, whatever comes next feels a bit fresher.

[ritt works hard fo da chickens]

A heel chasing is better. You never know to what lengths a heel will go to win and he can win without taking the title by cheating. There's only so many times you can dq a heel with a title until the face gets a stip match that evens things up and if he loses all steam is lost. How many times can you watch a face get fooled by a heel and still root for him. After awhile you start feeling stupid yourself and hoping for a smarter guy to come along. Remember Orton losing the belt to Trips right after he got tossed from Evolution. He fell for all the tricks he was pulling off months earlier and just looked like an idiot, instead of sympathetic. Sting became the same way after awhile.

Even the more successful heel runs of the modern era weren't much of heels. The difference between face and heel Rock (bar his Hollywood Rock) was who he was telling to smell what he was cooking. His mannerisms were the same either way who he fought was the only difference. Heel Trips tries so hard to be cool heel. The entire NWO played to the crowd and were about getting cheers, only Hogan got consistent hate of the main players.