Joined
·
3,641 Posts
There's been debate for years over whether Cena should turn, but could you argue that in some ways he already has?
The definition of a heel is basically a wrestler the audience dislikes. For whatever reason, Cena plays a character who is greatly disliked by a vast portion of the audience. In a sense, he is a classic heel. Fans are desperate to see him beaten. Even Dolph Ziggler or Sheamus gets audible cheers when facing him. You could say Cena more than anyone else gets people over.
My view is that Cena currently plays a dual role. He is a face to one part of the audience, and a heel to the other.
Question is, when people say Cena should 'turn heel', how exactly do they imagine his character changing? And how would that new character make him a more effective heel than he already is?
The definition of a heel is basically a wrestler the audience dislikes. For whatever reason, Cena plays a character who is greatly disliked by a vast portion of the audience. In a sense, he is a classic heel. Fans are desperate to see him beaten. Even Dolph Ziggler or Sheamus gets audible cheers when facing him. You could say Cena more than anyone else gets people over.
My view is that Cena currently plays a dual role. He is a face to one part of the audience, and a heel to the other.
Question is, when people say Cena should 'turn heel', how exactly do they imagine his character changing? And how would that new character make him a more effective heel than he already is?