Why do heel champions supposdedly draw better?

[The Tino Standard 0]

I've mentioned this briefly in a couple other threads, but for the life of me, I still can't understand the logic of heel champions drawing better.

 

Compare the WWE to a professional sports team. The local home team is the 'face,' while the visiting teams are the 'heels.' Which pro sports team draws better- a team that is winning very often or the team that loses most of the time? The winning team, of course. When victory totals plummet, so do attendance figures. Point is, people want to see their team (the good guys/faces) win. Attendance doesn't magically start going up because people are more excited to see their team win after a string of losses. Once the good guys start to lose frequently, interest goes down.

 

For some reason, the WWE thinks it makes for better business to have a heel champion, with faces chasing the title. Why? Think about it, who were the two greatest drawing champions for the WWE? Hogan and Austin. Each time, they were a face, fighting off all challengers. They won and people loved it. I've seen people argue that once the face wins the title, everything after that is anti-climatic. Bullshit, sez I, that's just bad booking. Austin trying to fend off Mick Foley, the Undertaker, the Rock and HHH was a lot more interesting to me than watching the same wash/rinse/repeat cycle with HHH and his string of challengers over the last year. It's gotten to the point now that even if a face beats HHH, nobody gets excited because they know where the belt is headed right back to in a month or two.

 

WWE out-drew the NWA/WCW (which preferred a heel champion) in the 80s and became the dominant company today by having a face champion most of the time. So why now is the WWE trying to emulate the company it BEAT a decade ago?

[Guest Choken One]

Because the Current puppetmaster is a better heel then a face.

 

Simple as that.

[Guest JMA]

The old theory is that the fans will pay to see the heel get his ass kicked. Although this tactic doesn't work forever. I think this was ONE of the reasons the Dusty Finish was used so much in the NWA.

[Guest Choken One]

The old theory is that the fans will pay to see the heel get his ass kicked. Although this tactic doesn't work forever. I think this was ONE of the reasons the Dusty Finish was used so much in the NWA.

I believe the only time that theory actually worked was with the HTM with the B Shows which often outdrew the A Shows.

[Guest Ghettoman]

It's Triple H, anything involving him is going to be devoid of any kind of smart booking or basic wrestling logic.

[Guest JMA]

The old theory is that the fans will pay to see the heel get his ass kicked. Although this tactic doesn't work forever. I think this was ONE of the reasons the Dusty Finish was used so much in the NWA.

I believe the only time that theory actually worked was with the HTM with the B Shows which often outdrew the A Shows.

I don't know about that. It seemed to work with Flair as well.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

Of course heel's draw better as champions.

 

Remember the two major boom periods for the WWE?

 

They came when such top heels as HULK HOGAN and STEVE AUSTIN were on top.

 

Silly rabbits.

[JHawk 0]

A good heel champion can draw as well as a good face champion. We've already mentioned The Honky Tonk Man, and we can add Superstar Billy Graham to this list. And their reigns worked for one simple reason...they cheated to win the titles and either cheated or lucked out into retaining the titles, so you always believed they could lose on any night. Did anybody see Honky Tonk Man actually win a match as Intercontinental Champion? Every match I saw him in, he got disqualified or counted out to retain the championship. As for Graham, even in cages he usually won when his opponent knocked him through the open door, a la Muraco-Snuka at MSG.

 

The problem comes with someone like Triple H, who everybody assumes is going to win. Why pay your hard-earned money to watch a World Title Match if it's a given that your favorite isn't going to win? That's back to the theory in the opening post. Yankee fans are relatively sure their team is going to win, but it's their team, so it's cool. But if Yankee fans think it's a given that the Red Sox are going to beat them 13-0, why go just to see your team lose? You wouldn't.

[k thx 0]

People pay money to see a face beat a heel. If that heel has a championship that the face can win, it just makes you want him to win even more.

 

That's the logic.

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

That's fine in theory and all...but it doesn't work in practice with the WWE.

 

They've been the most successful wrestling company in America for a long time now...and they have a long streak of strong face champions to thank for it.

 

Sammartino-Backlund-Hogan-*Down Period*-Austin.

 

Business hasn't been booming the last few years...and HHH's long title reign on one show and Brock's on the other hasn't budged anything.

[k thx 0]

Maybe, but:

 

1) This "rule" was first used in the times of kayfabe, when far less factors played into whether or not you wanted to see a wrestler. Back in the good old days, all that mattered was who was heel and who was face (for the most part).

 

2) The major face champions were super-over, and without an equally over heel to challenge them. For example, the chase of a heel champion may work for a mid level face, but for someone like Hogan, they were booked too strongly for them to be losing championship matches.

 

3) This theory wont work in WWE (or even in WWF), because for the most part fans are too smart, and the heels are booked as being people who you like but are bad, as opposed to people you despise.

[Guest Team Hoss]

HHH isn't seen as being beatable. On the few instances he does lose, he immediately comes out and cuts a promo that tells you it's just a matter of time until he's going to embark on his next year long title reign.

 

Lesnar, on the other hand, runs his mouth about being the "Greatest Champion of all Time" even though he runs away from guys like Hardcore Holly. He comes off as being vulnerable, and like someone mentioned earlier, that's the key to a heel champion being a successful draw.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Looking like an giant pussy is the key to being a draw?

 

There's a difference between making your heel champ look vulnerable (see: Brock vs Benoit) and making him look like a flat-out bitch (see: Brock vs Holly).

[Guest Choken One]

The old theory is that the fans will pay to see the heel get his ass kicked. Although this tactic doesn't work forever. I think this was ONE of the reasons the Dusty Finish was used so much in the NWA.

I believe the only time that theory actually worked was with the HTM with the B Shows which often outdrew the A Shows.

I don't know about that. It seemed to work with Flair as well.

He couldn't draw unless he had a strong face...

 

Steamboat/Flair tanked with epic proporptions but the Dusty run made incredible money.

[k thx 0]

Looking like an giant pussy is the key to being a draw?

 

There's a difference between making your heel champ look vulnerable (see: Brock vs Benoit) and making him look like a flat-out bitch (see: Brock vs Holly).

But as long as the champ can back it up in the ring, it's all good.

 

Would there be as much fuss if Brock had been given the same program against Benoit than Holly?

[Guest Team Hoss]

Looking like an giant pussy is the key to being a draw?

 

There's a difference between making your heel champ look vulnerable (see: Brock vs Benoit) and making him look like a flat-out bitch (see: Brock vs Holly).

That's true.

 

Benoit belonged in the main event with Lesnar. Holly was so laughably out of place and unbelievable as a title holder that they pretty much HAD to make Lesnar look like his bitch so Holly would have any semblance of credibility going into that match. Of course, they then put Lesnar over in six minutes, making any fan who actually bought into Holly feel like a complete tool.

[Guest Jimbo]

Simply, isn't it more fun to watch some face you really like achieve his goal and defeat the bad guy and get gold? The face has go to beat the other guy, instead of running around trying to survive when he's champ.

[chaosrage 0]

Austin trying to fend off Mick Foley, the Undertaker, the Rock and HHH was a lot more interesting to me than watching the same wash/rinse/repeat cycle with HHH and his string of challengers over the last year. It's gotten to the point now that even if a face beats HHH, nobody gets excited because they know where the belt is headed right back to in a month or two.

It's like that now, but it wasn't in 2000. 2000 was a much bigger drawing year than 1998 too.

 

It's just more entertaining to see the face struggling and fighting to get the belt than holding on to it.

[Guest Loss]

The reason it doesn't work as well in WWE is that the company tends to focus more on marketing and merchandising than booking, so the company has more "cool heels" than true heels because they still have to sell a decent amount of merchandise to make good money.

 

It's a flawed structure, and it's why WWE has never really had a huge heel to carry them to greater heights. WCW had Hulk Hogan from 1996-1998, who's title reigns were the highest-drawing in company history, so there's proof right there that it can work.

 

Basically, a great heel needs a great face and vice versa. Without each other, they're nothing. When people see their favorite wrestler against their least favorite, and they both have the reputation of being someone who can't really be beaten, then usually, money is drawn.

 

It's never worked in WWE because none of the heels have really been true heels. They've all worked in too much humor, gotten upstaged so much that it was impossible for them to retain any heat or in HHH's case, they have beaten everyone so convincingly that it's made for a boring product and no one thinks the top heel can be beaten.

 

It's not that a heel draws "better" necessarily, but a big babyface win needs to be built up properly and the way to do that is to put the belt on a hot heel who the fans want to see lose.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The old theory is that the fans will pay to see the heel get his ass kicked. Although this tactic doesn't work forever. I think this was ONE of the reasons the Dusty Finish was used so much in the NWA.

That logic is good but falls apart in the WWF when people know that the title is just on loan and the face is going to be without the title in a few months. And it's also a failure when faces are now just transition champs for the next heel.

[teke184 0]

The theory behind heel champions drawing-

 

It all comes down to the belief that most faces make shitty champions and that the chase is a lot more exciting than the actual reign. Take Steve Austin for instance. His first several reigns were half-assed for the most part and he finally lost the belt in September 1998 because they needed to build for the chase that would come to a head at Wrestlemania 15.

 

Up until the reign starting at Wrestlemania 17, the longest he'd held the belt at any one time would be his first reign (March 1998 to June 1998, losing to Kane). His other reigns covered in that time are June 1998 to September 1998, March 1999 to May 1999, and June 1999 to August 1999.

 

By far, his chases for the title did better than his time as champion, partially because everyone knew he was going to win much like Hogan in the 80s once he had the belt.

 

 

When you have a babyface on a chase combined with a GOOD heel champion (read- not post-quad Triple H) you make money. When you have most babyface champions, you get crap because the heel has to look overwhelmingly strong enough to challenge the defending babyface, which tends not to happen in many cases.

[Guest Loss]

What Teke said is very true. I should also mention that Randy Savage was so hot after he turned on Hulk Hogan in early 1989 that there was actually consideration given to him retaining the WWF title at Wrestlemania V because he was drawing so well on house shows.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

It's very simple, the old school NWA-based theory is that a super hot heel champ is best because the face chasing for the title for a long time is the best storyline.

 

However, the WWF has ALWAYS been built around a dominant good guy. It's probobly because it makes it more accessable to casual fans.

[Guest Ahhee]

What Teke said is very true. I should also mention that Randy Savage was so hot after he turned on Hulk Hogan in early 1989 that there was actually consideration given to him retaining the WWF title at Wrestlemania V because he was drawing so well on house shows.

 

Didn't Savage draw well as IC champ too?

[Guest Repo Man Reborn]

It's Triple H, anything involving him is going to be devoid of any kind of smart booking or basic wrestling logic.

And 4,000 gimmicks per title defense.

[cabbageboy 0]

This theory is bullshit. I've always thought so. A heel can only work as champion in a short term capacity (re: a few months before jobbing to a major face). Fans just get sick of a heel as champion....why pay to see someone who you don't like that won't ever LOSE?

 

To be honest, Flair really didn't draw all that well in the 80s as a heel champ. That's the NWA's dirty little secret. All the Dusty Finishes and Horseman nonsense was ok in the short term, but long term it killed the company (that and the UWF brainfart).

 

See, with Austin or the Rock they would get the belt again after a few months. Thus, a heel could remain a hot draw without wearing out his welcome.

[Guest Dynamite Kido]

Just to clarify something here about the heel as a strong champion. This only works in the revolving door of heels that was mainly used in the 80's. This is the theory that a heel can be made champion and terrize a territory. Then the build is the face winning the title and the heel would go to another territory and work as a heel. Thus, this can be consider to be outdated and it no longer works in the current state of pro wrestling.