Wrestling Forum banner

Face, and Heel?

433 Views 0 Replies 1 Participant Last post by  truk83
Throughout the years of my professional wrestling interests I've always thought that there were certain stars that are just flat out "heels", or plain old "faces". Not to say that there aren't stars out there that are fine no matter what role, HBK, Taker, or Piper would be a "few" solid examples. Its nice to see that there are stars out there that play both roles well, but I happen to also like those that don't change.

HBK made a great point about HHH being "Vile", and that he is capable of doing anything to win, and through that point HBK made it clear why he (HBK) played the "face", or "heel" role. Michaels had passion, which comes along with most "face" characters. The emotion is crucial, and shows the fans that this "star" cares. HHH on the other hand built his career off of being a "heel".

Yes, many have argued, and said that HHH has too much respect to be booed by the fans. That is only true due to the fact that he doesn't go against the grain, and tell him all to kiss his ass for being a bunch of band-wagoners. He doesn't do this, he simply just takes the popular heat. It is his own fault that the fans still cheer him.

Randy Orton didn't start off as a "heel" in the WWE, but later once his character evolved he grew in to the perfect arrogant heel of our day. When he first joined Evolution, and even prior to that Orton was solid. His RNN updates were classic, and he had the attitude down precisely. Randy said it himself that he loved his first heel character because it was naturally him with an added bonus of his acting as the "heel". Obviously he doesn't go through life acting this way to people.

Steve Austin was the most over "tweener" of all time, but he more or less was a "face" character. Then, the WWE tried to turn him heel, and it went sour. His debut as the Ringmaster was horrible, and when he changed gimmicks, then gained respect from the fans at KOTR, he was super over. Many called him the anti-hero, but we all knew he was just a foul mouthed, beer-drinking, christian who occasionally swore at, or stunned the boss, the bosses son, daughter, or even Michael Cole. Austin should have stayed "face", and his heel run in the WWE(f) was nasty, but his Stunning Steve Austin heel run in the WCW was golden.

Again I don't mind the fact that there are wrestlers on the roster that could work either as a heel, or face. However, one of the problems with this is that the WWE likes to turn them one to the other way too fast at times. Almost to a point where you can't remember what role a star still has. There is absolutely no real build to these changes of character at times, and for the most part no creativity. Nothing stands out anymore, and I think the abuse of turning one to the other can make that happen.

While at the same time I also believe that certain wrestlers should be heel, or face to a particular wrestler. For example why can't a "face" Christian not like a "face" John Cena? Why can't a heel Orton not like a heel Miz? When these types of situations happen it is likely easier for the fans to decide who they want to cheer. Making it more obvious as to who the more talented "face" is. Something to consider when looking to create a household name, and specifically a "face" character".

The WWE has to take a handful of wrestlers in my opinion, and basically tell them that they are to play the "heel" role, or "face" role until something creatively comes there way to push them one direction, or the other. Typically, I would think that they would this with their more popular talent, being that those guys don't need as much change in character to remain popular. Cena the WWE's biggest "babyface", and then Orton the WWE's greatest "heel". However they have already gone back , and forth with Orton on not only face to heel, but even his "heel metamorphisis" that he went through.