Promoter 0 Report post Posted August 3, 2004 I stole this from another place and thought it would create some nice discussion again at these forums. There are two posts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The issue at stake here is the difficulty in choosing one star to push to Main Event status with a view to becoming World Champion. We are looking to do two thing here, 1. To get the guy over and 2. to achieve the biggest draw possible from the star's potential. -------- The Face Champ: The Ultimate Warrior was an awesome draw when chasing the title (either the IC belt from Rick Rude or the World Title from Hogan/ Savage) but then just predictable and boring whilst actually in the title run because he squashed all challengers, including the very able like Ted Dibiase, Mr. Perfect and Rick Rude. After you've been through a list like that who's going to believe ANYONE can beat him? Who's going to pay to see him win AGAIN? So why was Hogan such a big draw? Wasn't the formula the same? Well no actually it wasn't... well in essence it was but the actual formaula played itself out differently. The average Hogan match started with Hogan getting the token initial offence until the heel (usually either A. A physically bigger/ stroner wrestler - an Andre, King Kong Bundy, Zeus or Earthquake or B. A far better technical wrestler - a Savage, Dibiase or Flair) broke the momentum and beat on him for 10-15 minutes. Hogan is an underrated worker as he made every heel look GOOD. After 15 minutes of taking punishment THEN we got the Hulk up, big boot, leg drop and the win. Hogan has overcome the odds again. With Hogan's title runs the question was always 'well how's he going to be THIS guy?'. Whilst Hogan was a constant in terms of heat the WWF also built up the heels he would face - Andre the Giant, "The Million Dollar Man" Ted Dibiase, Earthquake, Sgt. Slaughter. And when they wanted an EVEN bigger draw put him up against another high-drawing face - Randy Savage, Ultimate Warrior. So that's one way to do it. This is pretty much what the Rock does too. With Warrior this tactic didn't work because he was a poor worker and also because he was booked to look indestructable - this is also why Goldberg lost alot of heat when he became WCW champion. Once the indestructible force has conquered the imovable object (as Gorilla Monsoon might say) it has nowhere else to go, so a potential heat machine just ends up looking pointless. Austin who was also booked to look indestuctalbe at times was handled far better than Warrior or Goldberg. He was screwed at every turn out of the title, put into long lasting feuds against hordres of scheming heels - one tough man against the world rather than one super man against whoever will take him on. This is another way to go. So.... so far 3 ways to go with a face champ - 'the Hogan way', 'the Warrior way' and 'the Austin way. There is a fourth - this is the Bret Hart type of face champ. The hardworking face who'll defend his title no matter what or who and against any odds. Ricky Steamboat fits this role nicely. Flair's face title runs pretty much follow this formula as well and I believe it is the current situation with Chris Benoit. The fifth sort of face champ is the sort of champ Randy Savage was... someone who had been a heel and could be again, someone who would take on faces as well as heels, someone who towed the tweener line. Shawn Michaels qualifies also, as does Chris Jericho. The highest drawing of all these ideas is undoubtedly the Hogan way of doing things and, roughly on par, the Austin way of doing things. This is not because they also happen to be the highest drawing but because it's logical. People will pay to see a face battle the odds, the odds were always stacked against Austin, the odds always seemed to favour Hogan's opponent. But it really depends on what type of face you're trying to push.... If it's a 'monster face', a Warrior, a Goldberg, an Undertaker or a Kevin Nash, you need a scheming or arrogant heel Champion for them chase (a Ric Flair or Kurt Angle say), you'd want them to chase it for as long as possible and have them lose it fairly quickly too. If you've got a strong face character like Hogan or The Rock you'll want to give them fairly lengthy reigns and build up heels for them to overcome (note NOT destroy). If you've got a face who's high on workrate but low on charisma (Bret Hart, Chris Benoit) you need to fill the World Title picture with an assortment of different challenges. In 1992/3 for example there was Yokozuna, Shawn Michaels, Kamala and The Undertaker for Bret Hart to defend against. What you're trying to do here is to 'prove' that this champ really is the best wrestler there is. If you've got a face who is a bit of a tweener - Michaels or Savage say - it is probably best to give him the belt and have him feud with a mixture of faces an heels. In Savage's 1988 run for example he had a lengthy programme with Ted Dibiase (a match which could always go either way and so virtual certainy of a high draw - check out their figures over that year) and then eventually with Hogan. This is potentially the best policy but it runs the risk of a more popular face stealing the limelight and the heat and thus making the champ seem weak, which arguably happened to both Savage and Michaels in their time. ------ The Heel Champ: I think the heel champ is far easier to book and also is a guarenteed draw if done correctly. The classic case is Honky Tonk Man. A man who clearly had no right to be wearing the IC belt but somehow held onto it for 18 months. The more he holds onto it the more people will pay to see him lose it. But the champion in question must be weak. Arguably Sgt. Slaughter was a bit like this. If you want a stronger sort to be champ it all depends on what the heel is like, there are multiple options. Type 1 is the Classic heel - a guy who has undoubted ability and knows it and talks about it but is not above cheating and frequently does. This is Ric Flair, Ted Dibiase, Mr. Perfect, Rick Rude and Kurt Angle. You simply book this guy like you'd book the working face champ only he'd only be challenged by faces. What you're trading on here is the strength of the guy's heel-heat, how much do the people want to see him beat AS WELL AS how much do they like the face. If Dibiase had won the belt at Wrestlemania 4 the same programme only with Savage as the challenger and Dibiase as the champion would have sold just as well, if not better. NWA always went this route because the heel champ would battle the biggest face draw in each territory. Type 2 is the Monster heel - here we have Warrior/ Goldberg only in heel form. The heel form tends to focus more on phyisical bulk than strength of force, hence Yokozuna, Earthquake, Brock Lesner, Andre the Giant, Kane. These are usually the puppets of an evil force - Vince, Heenan, Mr. Fuji. I suppose they could effectively work as challengers or champions. A huge obstacle to a Hogan type face champ or an immovable object to a face challenger - preferrably a Warrior but any will do. Type 3 is HHH. He is like the other two rolled into one. This comes with its problems because he invariably ends up looking awesome and unbeatable. I am not sure how to book HHH as champ but I think his 1999/2000 run was the best, with a clique behind him and in-league with the powers that be. Not too dissimilar to his situation right now. Perhaps the best policy is to build a face that he continously screws out of the title for a long time until the final blow-off. I know they've already done this a few times but you know what I mean. Some champions need to take on all comers, others need feuds and specific adversaries to get the title reign over. I think HHH is like this as he doesn't need to 'prove he's the best' like a Bret Hart would. ---- Conclusion All in all the highest drawing type of champion is the Hogan-type face and then I would say the Classic Heel. The Austin-type run is also high drawing but faces the potential problem of becoming a bit repetitive if repeated too many times. This too is the problem facing a heel champ with a clique behind him who also happen to weild immense power (eg. NWO, McMahon-Helmsly era, Evolution/ Bischoff). Discuss. -- I also think the best type of champion is the Super Champ of the 80's Hogan version for all the things you stated. The problem doing this however is getting someone who the fans would actually allow to be in this vien. It's easier said than done which is why I feel Hogan is under-rated by the IWC. Yeah, the excuse will be that was back in the day and so on, but I don't think it's just that simple. When I watch some of the old school matches today Hogan just seems invincible and believable. I'm talking 84-88 Hogan here and not the champ of 1989-1990 because that just got too cartoonish after he regained the title from Savage. Hogan just seemed larger than life and had an aura to him like Mike Tyson use to have He was dominant and you knew he was, but you still wanted to see how he would overcome the obstacle. He made you care to see him because it felt like an event in and of itself. For all the success of The Rock and Steve Austin their reigns just did not have the same kind of aura which tells me Hogan couldn't have been all that much of a guy in the right place at the right time. No one has done the championship reign like Hogan did since 84-88. I think Ultimate Warrior flopped for a lot of reasons. Firstly, when he became champion he BEAT Hogan and the way he won it seemed as if they were passing the torch. It was all good, but Warrior started to emulate Hogan and no one likes a copycat. We already had Hogan to do the shtick. Their mistake was trying to make Warrior the new Hogan by really making him a new Hogan. Remember the shaking of the leg for the ten count instead of the dropping of the arm and hulking up like Hogan? How about stripping Ultimate Warrior of all his craziness and trying to make him kissing babies and making his make-up disappear to a little Warrior sign on his cheek? Secondly, the wwe did not line up any solid competition for Ultimate Warrior. In 1989 the wwe ran Warrior/Rude for the whole spring and summer. In 1990 they did the exact same thing. His other contenders in Mr. Perfect and Ted Dibase didn't even get any storyline reason for facing Ultimate Warrior. Compare it to the time they faced off against Hogan. Some of Warrior flopping had to do with Warrior, but I believe it was a lot more to do with the booking. Then when Warrior started to catch on as champion in the winter of 1990 they job him out to Sgt. Slaughter in early 91 killing Warrior's chances for good as the heir apparrent(although the changing of direction with guys like Bret Hart were on its way anyways). In other words Vince booked Hogan MUCH BETTER than he did Ultimate Warrior. I actually think the wwe did not book Austin as champion that well. Notice Austin is more remembered for feuding with his boss than anything. The only real good that came out of it was the anti-authority character shining and the politics of behind the scenes coming out on camera. This could also be seen as a curse as we have seen the evil boss character get ran into the ground. I think they booked Austin well up until WM 15 and after that it became too repititive as you stated. They probably should have just booked Austin like Hogan in 1999 and have him job at SummerSlam to Triple H. I think the idea of the chase being better than the actual defending is down to booking. It's bad booking for the babyface to finally get the prize and then fizzle out. The fans should want the man to KEEP the title because they know how long or hard it was for the babyface to get the title. Anytime the chase is better than the actual reign it's because the booking is made to keep the heel champ over and to regain the strap. It's more of the fans just wanting to see the heel finanly go down. That is a good tool, if they want the heel to be the real champion. That is the problem I saw with Vince/Austin's rivalry. It was about Vince screwing Austin and not the title so much. It set up a scenario where the fans were just glad to see Vince get foiled in his plans instead of setting up Austin as a real champ like say Hogan or Hart. It's good for awhile, but gets annoying and the title and other wrestlers lose their heat since it's not really about them. Vince made the other wrestlers just look like pawns in his game with Austin unlike Hogan's reign where it also put over the other talent's ambition to become #1. Speaking of Triple H the wwe booked him well from the time he got the strap from Big Show. No complaints, but he did not put over the top face as he should have. He lost the title because of Vince Mcmahon getting pinned. To really blow it off the heel should get his comeuppance. I think type 1 is still the best heel because if someone is real talented and knows it, but still takes shortcuts that pisses people off. It helps keep the prestige of the belt because the guy is talented and arguably is the best guy, but he takes shortcuts. Going back to the kind of champ that Bret Hart was I think that is the true old school face champ. Again, this would only work with someone that actually is a man who can arguably say he is the best. The person has to fit the role. The tweener champ role works best with a heel everyone respects, but gets cheered anyways. This obviously can only work with certain talented wrestlers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
