Wrestling Forum banner

Has there ever been a top heel that the majority of the IWC disliked.

5K views 56 replies 46 participants last post by  mrdiamond77 
#1 ·
Heels seem to be more popular on here. Why do you think that is?
 
#9 ·
Triple H for your first question.

For your second, heels are more popular with smart fans because the modern faces are Cena and other faces who act just like him (the Usos, face Sheamus, etc.)

When all your faces are one dimensional characters who act alike, but the heels are more complex and have personality, it makes smart fans who don't think it's real prefer the more entertaining characters.

They don't have faces like Stone Cold any more. If they did, smart fans would cheer him as well.
 
#35 ·
This is a great answer and I wanted to underline how much better it is when somebody asks a question and then other people explain their own reasons/motives. This way we actually learn something accurate rather than the pathetic circle jerks of threads like 'Why don't people give Lucha Underground a chance' (paraphrased) where almost everybody responding orally pleasured themselves by saying "Because they don't want to enjoy wrestling, they want to hate it" or "Because they're braindead drooling sheep zombies" or "They're scared of Hispanics" (somebody even has this in their sig as though it was a 'burn' - I'm not naming names).

Ask people and then let the people who do that thing tell you why they do it - we all understand our own honest motives but few of us are capable of understanding other people's unfortunately.
 
#18 · (Edited)
Del Rio

Edit: Miz was hated as top heel ?. Are we all forgetting all the miz sigs and avatars on here when he was champion that people quietly removed once they realised he was being moved down the card..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Push_Miz
#8 ·
If he counts as a top heel, then Big Show. If not, then Triple H and JBL although JBL was starting to get some love in 2005. Orton had a very polarizing relationship with the IWC as a heel as people either cheered for him and loved him, or they accused him of being the biggest beneficiary of nepotism on this side of Neptune.
 
#12 ·
Alberto Del Rio
 
#23 ·
You can seldom trust the internet for you will find very few faithful posters commited to their opinions and perspectives and sometimes it's a 15 year old kid who won't have the same opinion 5 years from now. Regardless, the internet and it's many places of discussion are very great places for interesting insight and if I were the WWE, I would have a division dedicated to fervently researching the web and finding the best insight possible amongst the 80% of trash and trolls, though I notice not all trolls take this as a joke. One or two of you actually make good opinions and engaging conversation, but the guy with 8 avatars is kinda of a force(gay anakin force lol).

Triple H has been ironically maligned for burying guys the internet has shat on. Booker T was always considered never "big" enough to main event in the WWE and was "too WCW" to win the title. Scott Steiner was too damn old, juiced up and slow, yet when Triple H buried him, in a main event nonetheless, he is a bad guy. Goldberg who is often criticized online as one of the most overrated and least talented workers had those same critics come out of the woodworks to defend him when Triple H destroyed him at the Elimination Chamber in 2003. It's funny the amount of contradictions you will find and remember when just 5 years ago everyone said Warrior was one of the worst workers of all-time? Now he's a legend etc etc... When you're in a top position or talented enough to be talked about, people will always shit on you. It's what humans do. Now, when people shit on you way too much, a la Roman Reigns, it most definitely means you are on the wrong direction. If you get a good 50-50 reaction like guys like Warrior and H always did, then you're pretty much money.

In recent recollection, the only guy I ever saw heavily shit on was JBL, not because he was a horrible heel, worker, or champion but because everyone knows Eddie should have held the title longer and many disagree that JBL should have been the guy to beat him. Fucking Eddie beat Brock Lesnar, and he never pinned JBL once...
 
#37 · (Edited)
You can seldom trust the internet for you will find very few faithful posters commited to their opinions and perspectives and sometimes it's a 15 year old kid who won't have the same opinion 5 years from now. Regardless, the internet and it's many places of discussion are very great places for interesting insight and if I were the WWE, I would have a division dedicated to fervently researching the web and finding the best insight possible amongst the 80% of trash and trolls, though I notice not all trolls take this as a joke. One or two of you actually make good opinions and engaging conversation, but the guy with 8 avatars is kinda of a force(gay anakin force lol).

Triple H has been ironically maligned for burying guys the internet has shat on. Booker T was always considered never "big" enough to main event in the WWE and was "too WCW" to win the title. Scott Steiner was too damn old, juiced up and slow, yet when Triple H buried him, in a main event nonetheless, he is a bad guy. Goldberg who is often criticized online as one of the most overrated and least talented workers had those same critics come out of the woodworks to defend him when Triple H destroyed him at the Elimination Chamber in 2003. It's funny the amount of contradictions you will find and remember when just 5 years ago everyone said Warrior was one of the worst workers of all-time? Now he's a legend etc etc... When you're in a top position or talented enough to be talked about, people will always shit on you. It's what humans do. Now, when people shit on you way too much, a la Roman Reigns, it most definitely means you are on the wrong direction. If you get a good 50-50 reaction like guys like Warrior and H always did, then you're pretty much money.
I can't put much stock in your observations here because there's no indication that the people who you've seen saying one thing are the people later saying another. You say "just 5 years ago everyone said Warrior was one of the worst workers of all-time" - this is not true, many many people said that *not* everyone; when you see "everyone" (most people) expressing a certain opinion, it doesn't mean that everybody out there holds this opinion--it means that most people who are expressing an opinion hold that particular opinion. This is not pedantry, this is HUGELY important because what's often missed is the thousands and thousands of people who are not saying anything at that time but are still out there silently holding opinions you've yet to hear expressed en masse.

You then say "Now he's a legend etc etc...", well firstly he's always been a legend in my book even though I'm one who'd say he was an awful worker so those don't even contradict but let's pretend you said "Now he's a beloved hero and a celebrated legend" - not to me he isn't!. Not just me either, there are tons of people out there who haven't changed their opinion, the problem is that whenever you see an opinion expressed you're ascribing it to the same set of people.------- You're also not factoring in reasons why certain opinions are more prevalent e.g. his TV return brings makes nostalgic people want to post, his death causes fewer people to express their negative feelings towards him.

I know you weren't entirely bashing 'the internet' but the problem isn't the internet, it's that we as human minds are generally extremely bad at separating individual from group when we can't see people's faces or at least hear their voices. I'd be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time someone on the internet lambasted others because "one minute you guys say [this], then the next minute you all say [the opposite]!" and I'd be richer still if I had a pound.

I'm not claiming that there are no people who change their tune but I am claiming that your observations are unreliable to the point of being meaningless unless you'll shock me by saying that you made notes of people's usernames and tracked who was saying what. Also, you're at best tracking final conclusions (e.g. "Triple H shouldn't have buried Steiner") and putting the change down to capriciousness - you're not learning WHY people's opinions (seemingly) aren't consistent. Someone could (and some have) said "Lol @ wrestling fans! Rumble 2014 everyone's chanting "ROMAN REIGNS, ROMAN REIGNS" yet Rumble 2015 everyone's booing him and hates him - hypocrisy" which is painfully stupid because they're making no attempt to determine WHY feelings changed. Also note the inaccurate generalisations/absolutes.

I can make it really cartoonish and say "IWC hypocrisy! in 2006 they loved Benoit but by the end of 2007 they all hate him - proof that the internet can't make up its mind" but in essence that's what you're doing. Could it be that these individuals didn't feel Booker was a good choice for world champion but that given the nature of his feud with Triple H it was insane to not have him win? Could it be that the wrestler won them over in the interim? Maybe they didn't want the wrestler as champion but wanted them buried by Triple H even less? Maybe it wasn't the same freakin' people? These are all plausible explanations, the laziest and least reliable of all being "other people's opinions are meaningless and change like the wind".
 
#26 ·
The most evil man alive

:vince3
 
#39 ·
Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio, The Miz.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top