Jump to content

Are the best babyfaces arseholes?


tiger_rick

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

Couple of things made me start this topic. I actually thought of it last night watching Battle Royal At The Albert Hall. Jim Duggan gets thrown out of the battle royal by Quake, grabs his 2x4 and illegally eliminates Quake. What a cunt! It was standard behaviour at the time though. Hogan was a massive cunt as Jesse Ventura would often point out. Jake Roberts would get his big snake out (ooh er) if stuff didn't go his way. Randy Savage was a misogynist. Ric Flair was an arrogant fucker.

 

Then listened to the Heel vs. Face debate from the SCG thread. The guys on the podcast spoke about the same thing. Steve Austin is the obvious example of this. The Rock was a massive twat too. Eddie Guerrero's lying, cheating and stealing got him over huge. None of them particularly changed their character as faces. Same as Ric Flair and Randy Savage hardly did.

 

Is the reason that babyfaces don't get over now because they are just massive pussies? WWE's last major slump was built on a collection of proper blue-eyed babyfaces. Do they need a bit of devil in them? I think so. Brock Lesnar is the biggest baby they have right now and he's just a heel who murders heels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think people will always cheer for someone they would like to associate themselves with, whether thats someone running there mouth and backing it up (Rock/Austin), someone just destroying everyone else (e.g. Brock/Goldberg). or maybe an underdog like Daniel Bryan (not for me personally but can see why people will root for them).

 

I look at Roman Reigns & Ambrose and don't see anything that appeals to me, both are weak, Reigns got screwed over at SS yet walks down the stairs in the arena smiling, Ambrose in his jeans just looks like any bloke off the street. 

 

I don't see anything that excites me, that gets me into the product or makes me believe in the goodies, maybe its an age thing and now I root more for the heels. 

 

Only The Undertaker in my eyes is the true babyface and thats because of his reputation, gimmick & whole aura around him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cena was a prick a few years ago when he got off with Eve Torres despite Zach Ryder was with her. Poor Ryder had a horrid few weeks around that time.

I see this brought up a lot. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, didn't Eve kiss Cena, not the other way around?

Yeah pretty sure she grabbed Cena and he acted startled afterwards, am I right in thinking Eve actually won that feud (for lack of a better term) ? She distracted Ryder at Mania and then gloated about it, no payoff for Ryder at all, which given he was booked like a dickhead for about 4 months was hilarious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

The pulling out Sid from the '92 Rumble was Hogan's main dick move as far as I was concerned, and I never trusted him after that.

 

Cena's worst moment was probably when he fought Rey Mysterio for the belt straight after he'd just won it in the tournament to crown a new champ following Punk's departure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I don't think they need to be arseholes, but they definitely can't be pussies. No one likes wimp who won't stand up for themselves. And WWE is full of babyfaces who don't stand up for themselves. It's like WWE think if a babyface is annoyed or angry it makes them unlikeable so they just smirk and shrug everything off. People can relate to anger and wanting to smash someones face in. The difference is the average person can't do that, but if a wrestler does it it immediately makes them more relateable and likeable. If the babyface acts like he doesn't care what the heel does then why should we cheer him? Stone Cold was violently angry all the time, that's what made him so cool and made everything he did matter. Plus, if a babyface is angry, violent it makes them more unpredictable and exciting and people want to see what happens. It also gives the heel more heat which makes the feud better and everyone's happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I don't think they need to be arseholes, but they definitely can't be pussies. No one likes wimp who won't stand up for themselves. And WWE is full of babyfaces who don't stand up for themselves. It's like WWE think if a babyface is annoyed or angry it makes them unlikeable so they just smirk and shrug everything off. People can relate to anger and wanting to smash someones face in. The difference is the average person can't do that, but if a wrestler does it it immediately makes them more relateable and likeable. If the babyface acts like he doesn't care what the heel does then why should we cheer him? Stone Cold was violently angry all the time, that's what made him so cool and made everything he did matter. Plus, if a babyface is angry, violent it makes them more unpredictable and exciting and people want to see what happens. It also gives the heel more heat which makes the feud better and everyone's happy.

 

I'd say there's an exception to this, though - when someone's clearly in servitude/debt/indenture to a heel. In this case, the crowd will be willing the character in question to fight back because he wants to but thinks he can't. I'm put mainly in mind of Rhodes and DiBiase Jr. when Orton was bullying them, and also HBK working for JBL. Obviously, there are loads more examples, but those were the first two which came to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I was about to type that it's vital they don't come across as idiots, but I'm a Sting fan, and he always came across as an utter tool during a chunk of his WCW run, so maybe it's just down to winning a lot and wearing cool ring gear.

 

A bit of edge is great, but you should have a variety of characters, which is WWE's main issue. You've currently got Reigns playing John Cena doing Daniel Bryan's 'Mania 30 storyline. I think it's partly why Dean Ambrose was catching on last year, he was something different from what we've been getting around the top of the card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I think there's a difference between the faces being "arseholes" and doing what they have to in order to right the perceived wrongs against them.

 

Everyone loves the idea that all the injustices could be sorted out by twatting the folk that put obstacles in the way and most of the audience can relate to that.

 

You can get to a point in life where you are so "over" you can cut a few corners to get what you want. I'm thinking mainstream media personalities here. Once knocked off the top, there's a period of rebuilding, a come back and then all out to reclaim their status or position.

 

Hogan, Cena, Taker etc can all be seen that way at various stages.

 

It's not necessarily part of their nature to be arseholes but to get to the top and stay there regardless how popular you are you need to do a few unpleasant things.

 

Tiger Woods or Patrick Reed in the world of golf are other examples.

 

So, in a strange way, the best faces HAVE to show these traits from time to time because they so closely resemble what is in part reality of being successful in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...