Wrestling Forum banner

When Did the Obsession with Clean Wins Over Top Faces Begin?

4K views 46 replies 29 participants last post by  amhlilhaus 
#1 ·
Not a hating thread, a curiosity thread. Back when I started watching wrestling and even when I first got smart to it, I never once saw anything about "a top face putting over heels clean". Hogan never did it as a top face. Austin certainly never did it as a top face (the loss to HHH at No Way Out was as cleanish as it can get but it was made to look like a buffoonish accident) the Rock only put over Lesnar sorta clean. My point is....when John Cena became the top face, people got mad over the fact that he never put anyone over clean and I always wondered, why?

Isn't the whole point of a top face, that they are supposed to be the top face? Isn't them losing supposed to look like the heel needed to cheat or do something terrible to do it? I mean, wrestling is pretty much a giant live action comic book....yes even today by reality standards. I'm not saying let the faces get their ass kicked 95% of the match and then win. I'm asking.....when did the obsession with top faces losing clean begin? And why does it bother so many people?
 
#6 ·
That's been a formula for a top babyface since wrestling was a thing.

It became a thing when people wanted to downplay the times Cena did put somebody over: "it doesn't count because it was dirty... the only time Superman ever loses is with fuckery" etc.

Personally I do think heels should get clean wins occassionally; wrestling has been following the exact same structure for a million years: good vs evil, white meat babyface is Superman whose kryptonite is a thumb to the eye or held tights, the bad guy is completely inept unless they're cheating or they're a monster heel. It's such elementary storytelling; in a world where Jaime Lannister can be a sister fucking, back stabbing murderer and still be a fan favorite, I think WWE can handle a slightly more complex story format than good guy overcomes the odds.
I don't think the fans can handle it. Anytime they attempt a storyline with a grey character I start reading numerous fans crying, "Who's the face here, who's the heel? I'm so confused!"
 
#4 ·
It became a thing when people wanted to downplay the times Cena did put somebody over: "it doesn't count because it was dirty... the only time Superman ever loses is with fuckery" etc.

Personally I do think heels should get clean wins occassionally; wrestling has been following the exact same structure for a million years: good vs evil, white meat babyface is Superman whose kryptonite is a thumb to the eye or held tights, the bad guy is completely inept unless they're cheating or they're a monster heel. It's such elementary storytelling; in a world where Jaime Lannister can be a sister fucking, back stabbing murderer and still be a fan favorite, I think WWE can handle a slightly more complex story format than good guy overcomes the odds.
 
#33 · (Edited)
Gotta say i love the GOT analogies in this thread :lol

Just how long is this Daenerys push gonna last huh? girl had dragons since season 2 and get this superman booking while much more deserving characters like Eddard and Robb gets buried :cry

Fucking disgrace!

in a world where Jaime Lannister can be a sister fucking, back stabbing murderer and still be a fan favorite,
He did it for the realms goddamnit!
 
#24 ·
I can tell you that it was around 2009.

Here's the deal. See, traditionally, wrestlers would start out at the bottom and work their way up. As they got more exposed, they'd ideally get more over. The reward for their overness was a chance at holding a title in their slotted division. Only the top guys in each division would get or have a chance at getting a title. Bret Hart won his first singles title at Summerslam 1991-8 years into his WWF run. Somewhere around the early 2000s, WWE lost their way and figured "hey, forget having the competition elevate the titles, let's have the titles elevate the competition." They figured that just by slapping a few title reigns on a guy, he'd get over that way instead of organically. Since the titles meant something, if put on a guy who wasn't over, by virtue of holding the title, he'd mean something, too. It was a synthetic, fast track method of success. And that's why it totally failed. It gave us jokers like Jack Swagger (who I'm fine with, but in 2010, it was a mistake), Alberto Del Rio and Sheamus. Guys who really had no business at the top were shoved in while the audience was TOLD they were stars. As a result, this greatly devalued pretty much every single title on the roster.

So since the WWE title meant shit (even less with there being 2 world titles during the brand split that was still going on in 2009), people started looking for a new metric to judge whether or not a guy was getting a serious push. Holding a top title was no longer a useful measuring tool, since even losers were getting title reigns. Well, it became apparent that there were still 2 metrics that could give you this information. One was ability to main event PPVs, especially big ones like Mania or Summerslam. And the second was whether or not you could beat a top guy clean. A clean win is one where the loser becomes a lot more exposed due to the loss being due to them simply not being as good. Their reputation is vulnerable. Top babyfaces are the biggest draws and money makers in a wrestling company. That's because the fans have been groomed to recognize them as worthy of attention and admiration. This is usually achieved by the fact that they don't lose often, and if they do, its because the babyface is so great the heel had to cheat to beat them. Top babyfaces rarely lose clean because it can potentially hurt their drawing power and money making potential. So as a result, if someone is given a win over a top money maker/drawer, its a clear indication that the WWE wouldn't book that unless they were really willing to follow through with that risk. If they think you're worth putting over a top money maker/drawer, then they see value in you, which can translate into better booking, better feuds, more choice angles and generally better treatment. They are essentially investing in you by giving you a huge rub, which they hope will eventually pay off by turning you into a money maker/draw. And since screwing with your investment is stupid, it tends to mean that they'll get their shit together when putting together your future and give you favorable treatment. Fucking with a prop belt is whatever. Fucking with your cash flow is serious business. As such, a clean won over a top babyface started to become what it has ended up as now-one of the only real, surefire ways to gauge whether or not a guy is slated to get preferential treatment, which if he has fans, is likely to thrill them. Everyone wants to see their guy get used to his full potential-it means better entertainment for them. On the other hand, if he has a lot of haters, it'll provide said haters with infinite fodder to bitch about online in regards to how someone else who they like ACTUALLY deserved it.
 
#26 · (Edited)
I can tell you that it was around 2009.
Everyone wants to see their guy get used to his full potential-it means better entertainment for them. On the other hand, if he has a lot of haters, it'll provide said haters with infinite fodder to bitch about online in regards to how someone else who they like ACTUALLY deserved it.
I think you make a good point with your entire post, but I wanted to highlight this. People are smart enough to know it's fake, but still have the kinda marky reactions. You can read posts about deserving and earning the title all over the forum.

It's a show, Khal Drago didn't deserve to go over instead of being buried because Jason Momoa did good work on "The Red Road," Tashi doesn't deserve to win over Angela because you think Naughton has put in more work than Loren in her career. It's all part of a story.
 
#22 ·
Are we talking about a "top face" or are we talking about Cena and Reigns who are booed out of the building by 50% of the audience?

People don't care if the top face Hogan, Austin, Rock or Bryan are winning because they were so over.

People care when the person they hate is this annoying top "face" that is booed continuously for almost a decade
 
#34 ·
It just makes sense for Heels to be able beat Faces cleanly OR dirty imo, I mean when a wrestler is a face they can win matches cleanly, but when they turn Heel, they suddenly become inferior in the ring? That's something I've always found off kayfabe speaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris JeriG.O.A.T
#36 ·
People do need to focus less on clean wins, dirty wins even the number of wins. Instead on the insideous, irresponsible, cynical, embarrassing and highly damaging ways of pushing their chosen one. It destroys the story because the show is severly hampered by its need to serve you.

Are other wrestlers turned face or heel or put in roles that don't suit them in a bid to get you over?

Are you being given wins in situations that don't call for it?

Have you dropped the world title just so you can look like a hero by winning it back?

Are you're flaws hand waved but the flaws of others used as weapons against them?

Are other wrestlers that threaten to get over having their moment killed?

Have you been "Hulking Up" a lot to win your matches?

Are heel commentators talking about how great you are despite you being a babyface?

Has the office told you not to worry about the haters, we're here to please [insert demographic here]?

Has someone else been given a push then fed to you and never pushed again?

While some of these will be true for most wrestlers if most of them apply to you most of the time then congratulations you're a detriment to the show. You're popularity, drawing power even your talent serve only as a band aid or a life jacket to the damage that's been done in your name.

Shit runs deeper than wins or losses. This is theatre, subtext is important.
 
#41 ·
It was a movement started by all japan pro wrestling in the early 1990s. Giant baba was like the other promoters who thought that clean pins weakened babyfaces. What happened was genechiro tenryu, his 2nd biggest star left with another of their top guys, yoshiaki yatsu, and a bunch of solid mid carders. This meant he had to build a new main eventer, and quick. He already had a next gen star in tiger mask 2, but tiger mask was looked upon as a jr heavyweight star. So baba took a chance: he took the mask off, and pushed mitsuharu misawa as the next big thing. Misawa pinned jumbo clean, and jumbo had so much respect for the fans, it did not hurt him in the slightest. Up til now, even in japan, the results of top singles matches were double count outs, except for title changes. The only definitive wins were for foreigners like stan hansen to keep them built as monsters. Misawa v jumbo changed that. Baba promoted toshiaki kawada, kenta kobashi and akira taue to the main event, and their style was so unique that they shined even in losing. New japan quickly caught on, and they also went to the clean finish, and like all japan, their 3 new generation stars in keiji muto, shinya hashimoto and masahiro chono did not lose a shred of credibility in losing clean. In fact, new japan did all japan one better and had hashimoto, their very popular iwgp champion lose almost every match in the 1996 g1 tournament, and he came out of it more over. The new revolution in japan eventually made its way here, and it is now a part of pro wrestling. A top babyface can afford clean losses as long as its rare and the fans respect the heel doing it. Clean wins should solidify a guy, announce his arrival in the main event scene. Of course, wwe fucks up everything, and does dumb shit like have alberto del rio pin john cena clean, then have del rio lose to a jobber like kalisto. Or my favorite, have a new guy, kevin owens beat cena only to get crushed from then on meaning in the fans eyes that it was just luck.
 
#43 ·
Simple, because some of the heels are really good to. And while the "heel cheats to win" certainly still has a place in this business no doubt, it doesn't always HAVE to be that way. Guys like AJ Styles or Seth Rollins or Randy Orton (when he's a heel), etc are good-enough that there's nothing wrong with them just flat-out beating their opponents at times. Besides, you can always have them do heelish things at other points (taunting their opponents, pre or post-match beatdowns, etc) in order to draw heat.

Also not every heel needs to be a "coward who runs away or needs to cheat in order to win." Some heels, can just flat-out beat/batter their opponents into submission (Rusev fits that bill really well I think, if they'd just consistently book him well that is).

But then you have guys like who do have to resort to cheating in order to win and it fits their characters. The Miz works really well in that role right now I think, and Ric Flair made it into an art form back in the day, etc.

Variety is good is basically what I'm saying.
 
#14 · (Edited)
People get tired of the annoying heel, or the face that was booked the wrong way with lack of creativity. No one really has a concern if a convincing heel wins cleanly. People were tired of Rollins having the authority by his side all the time as it was promoting laziness. Lazy heels is what killed WCW, but unfortunately you still see people promoting that trivial concept of wins.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Can we please stop saying "people aren't ready for grey characters cuz roman lol" already ?

The majority dislikes him, and everyone saw his "grey angle" as yet another poor attempt to get damaged goods finally over while wrestlers that had never received any opportunity to prove themselves could go fuck themselves because WWE said so.

Reigns is NOT a good example of this kind of thing failing. People just don't like him and sacrifices that are made for naught.

On the other hand, I'm a strong advocate for an all tweener era. Nobody has the same definition of what makes a good guy, especially in a hardcore-fan driven era. You do have patterns you can easily follow to make a successful heel, but won't being successful make him cheered if he's good enough ?

Make everyone a tweener, refine each wrestler's character so people can make their own choice between compelling characters that represents differents shades of grey.

Old wrestling is dying, and they'll have to adapt to survive.
 
#30 ·
Can we please stop saying "people aren't ready for grey characters cuz roman lol" already ?

The majority dislikes him, and everyone saw his "grey angle" as yet another poor attempt to get damaged goods finally over while wrestlers that had never received any opportunity to prove themselves could go fuck themselves because WWE said so.

Reigns is NOT a good example of this kind of thing failing. People just don't like him and sacrifices for naught.

On the other hand, I'm a strong advocate for an all tweener era. Nobody has the same definition of what makes a good guy, especially in a hardcore-fan driven era. You do have patterns you can easily follow to make a successful heel, but won't being successful make him cheered if he's good enough ?

Make everyone a tweener, refine each wrestler's character so people can make their own choice between compelling characters that represents differents shades of grey.

Old wrestling is dying, and they'll have to adapt to survive.
Okay so what about people who were asking if Ambrose was being a heel because he was being a dick to Ambrose, or The confusion on Stephanie anytime she isn't a raging bitch? Are those bad examples too? Not saying you don't get it, but acting like confusion doesn't arrive anytime a character isn't being a heel or face by the book is silly.

The only thing about everybody being tweeners is it sounds like it wouldn't be long before it's like the women's division of old when basically everyone was a catty bitch.

Like it maybe a new time and antiheroes maybe popular but classic hero and villain will never get old. At some point there has to be someone you're supposed to root for, even if he was a piece of shit Walter White was the clear guy to root for in that. Same with the majority of works that are praised for not having black and white characters.


But if the entire roster is full of gray characters it becomes hard to standout. Could you elaborate on how an all tweener roster would work.

Sent from my Z828 using Tapatalk
 
#39 ·
Reigns has been pretty strong till the suspension. The problem is now, the fans want to cheer for the heels. People are sick of the idea of the super hero, and they want the anti-hero. Right now, there isn't a clear top guy too. Cena is on his way out, Reigns isn't there yet as a face. Rollins and AJ Styles are the MVP's right now.

If i'm booking Raw tonight, I'm having Reigns cheat to win on Rollins.... do a double turn and have Reigns as the heel, slowly turn Rollins Face... leading to a match at WM. (Just get this over with already)
 
#46 ·
I got into wrestling during Hogan's endless reign of terror and it enraged me that no one could pin him clean. The closest we got was Warrior but even in that match Hogan would have won if the ref wasn't knocked out. So this obsession for me at least has always been there.

I'm happy that Cena gave AJ that much needed win at Summerslam. He's now a made man.
 
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