Can heel vs. heel ever work

[JerryvonKramer]

Was thinking about this randomly earlier. Face vs. Face has produced some of the best ever matches. But the dynamic of heel vs. heel makes no sense at all from the crowd's perspective. There's no one to cheer, just two guys you're meant to hate.

 

So what does it come down to? Who do you hate more?

 

Have there ever been any good heel vs. heel matches?

 

It goes against all logic, so in theory we should be drawing a blank here.

 

There are very few examples at all that I can think of. Ric Martel vs. Shawn Michaels in 92. What else? Bret Hart vs. Bad News Brown in 88. I remember Money Inc vs The Beverly Brothers in '93, Jake vs. Machoman on SNME. ummmm Vader vs. Stan Hansen at Wrestlewar '91. Oh and Harley Race vs. Haku for the crown from *I think* Royal Rumble 1989.

 

After having a dig around, someone has posted a load of heel vs. heel matches on youtube, 34 of them seemingly, mostly random TV matches from WWF or WCW.

 

Can this be done well, and if so how can it be made to work WITHOUT turning either guy?

[Slasher]

I thought HHH vs Angle at the 2001 Royal Rumble worked well, but of course that had involvement by the babyface Austin.

[shoe]

Heel vs heel works well if presented properly. Look at Savage vs. Snake Roberts from SNME from 86 as an example. It did quite well in the DVDVR poll.

[shoe]

I thought Cornette was a believer in the heel vs heel dynamic. Still just like face vs. face you can't do it too often.

[smkelly]

There are very few examples at all that I can think of.

Then once again, you answer your own thread question in the very first post you make.

 

It happens, but very rarely does it work.

 

You have them brawl like Andre and Hansen did. Neither man lost any ground in their altercations. Andre laid in some good ones and Hansen held on to the end and delivered some of his own. And that's just from an image perspective. Why they don't do this anymore I don't know.

 

 

EDIT: What is the argument for heel vs. heel and face vs. face matches being bad again? Personally I don't find a problem with it whatsoever. Bad guys do fight each other as much as they fight good guys in comic books, movies, and real life anyway.

[MJH]

Heel vs. Heel works the same way as Face vs. Face... you switch one over the course of the match. It doesn't have to be a turn, but you just work the match so that you give the crowd something to root for. First example I can think of off the top of my head is Kawada/Taue from the '95 Carnival; it's pretty clearly worked for the crowd to get behind Taue.

[Loss]

The idea Cornette always espoused behind heel versus heel being better than babyface versus babyface is that fans don't like seeing two babyfaces they like against each other because they have to pick one over the other. Heel vs heel works because fans believe some serious shit has gone down because these guys are not "supposed" to dislike each other. It's a bit of an outdated way of thinking at this point, but for Cornette's point of reference, the Horsemen/Midnights feud in 1988, it was probably true.

[JerryvonKramer]

EDIT: What is the argument for heel vs. heel and face vs. face matches being bad again? Personally I don't find a problem with it whatsoever. Bad guys do fight each other as much as they fight good guys in comic books, movies, and real life anyway.

With heel vs. heel, I think the key argument against it is that the crowd has no one to root for, and therefore no emotional connection/ involvement with the match.

 

The traditional logic of a wrestling narrative would be a simple story like wanting to see good prevail over evil, or just your favourite guy beating a guy you don't like.

 

In real sports, most fans will have a team they support and that's their point of interest. If they happen to watch a match as a 'neutral', 9 times out of 10 they'll PICK someone to support just for the match. In wrestling, in threory, you are meant to dislike ALL heels. Heels are not only people you don't like, they are evil and have bad motives. Assuming the logic of all other sports applies to wrestling -- i.e. as a 'neutral' you're going to pick a guy to support just for the one match -- heel vs. heel puts the fan in the position of having to choose between two "evil" options. Who wants to root for someone evil?

 

So what are the crowds options? 1. Stay neutral, in which case where is your emotional "in"? 2. Support one of the two heels, in which case you've either sold out your values or at least decided to settle for the lesser of two evils.

 

A face winning pops the crowd. A heels winning kills it or outrages it. But here, theoretically it should do either.

 

(NB. You might not know, but I'm a lifelong heel supporter, but that's by the by)

[Kostka]

Orton vs Edge from 2007, either the week before or after the Cena/Michaels UK match, was heel vs heel and really good.

[rzombie1988]

Heel vs Heel works but during the match, one of them will be a defacto face. There was a good one in IWC with Jimmy Demarco and Dennis Gregory getting caught with different weapons in their tights.

[S.L.L.]

The CMLL boom last decade was built largely on two things: Mistico and heel vs. heel feuds. Usually, they got across this "tiers of heeldom" idea, where one heel would be more heelish than the other in the context of their feud. Like, Perros del Mal usually came off as more sympathetic than Los Capos. But they were still clearly heels when put up against actual babyfaces.

[Log]

-- heel vs. heel puts the fan in the position of having to choose between two "evil" options. Who wants to root for someone evil?

Sometimes fans are almost dying to cheer for a certain heel and loves it when they finally get the chance. The Roberts/Macho Man SNME match you mentioned was one time. Fans were really into Jake by that point and putting him up against Savage gave them a chance to finally cheer for him. It's pretty clear from that match that Vince was aware of that as Jake pretty much works it as a clear babyface.

 

I think Austin was kind of an example of this too. People were into his heel act, but finally pulling the trigger on his double-turn with Hart let them all-out root for him.

 

There have always been fans of heels. The Horsemen had their guys in suits at the tv studio. In Mexico, there are large sections of Rudo fans. I mean, in sports, plenty of people root for "heels". To most of America, the Yankees are "heels", the Cowboys and Lakers are for many, too. Yet they still have their ardent supporters.

[Victator]

With Austin they had him working against heels a lot prior to his big turn. He had TV matches with Vader and Mankind and a mini feud with the British Bulldog. The odd thing was Bulldog was the kinda face in the feud.

 

Heel vs Heel is the rarest treat in any type of serialized fiction. For some reason its more rare than a good guy vs good guy fight.

[shoe]

Cornette also did it with the Bodies and Studd Stable with both teams wanting a shot at the Rock N Roll Express. Eventually it broke down in 3 ways. Still the crowds were hot for the Studd Stable vs. Bodies matches.

[FLIK]

Usually, they got across this "tiers of heeldom" idea, where one heel would be more heelish than the other in the context of their feud. Like, Perros del Mal usually came off as more sympathetic than Los Capos. But they were still clearly heels when put up against actual babyfaces.

I've always liked that type of dynamic. It's worked really well in Japan as well over the years.

 

Crazy Max vs M2K vs Toryumon

RO&D vs Voo Doo Murders vs AJPW

Jungle Jack vs Gokumonto vs AJW

Etc...

[JerryvonKramer]

The CMLL boom last decade was built largely on two things: Mistico and heel vs. heel feuds. Usually, they got across this "tiers of heeldom" idea, where one heel would be more heelish than the other in the context of their feud. Like, Perros del Mal usually came off as more sympathetic than Los Capos. But they were still clearly heels when put up against actual babyfaces.

Yeah, I definitely think you can have degrees of heeldom. In 80s WWF, no one was really "more heel" than DiBiase or Heenan. They were at the extreme end.And Honky Tonk Man too. Rude was in the same sort of area in his WCW run.

 

In a Royal Rumble or something, if you'd get the occassional random heel vs. heel clash, the crowd would suppoer WHOEVER was against the guys listed above.

 

I think there's a good example of it in Rumble 92 when Haku takes a swipe at Flair. Flair in WWF was clearly "more heel" than Haku so Haku becomes de facto face.

[Loss]

I think it worked when the territory days were in effect. To quote Cornette once again, usually the local heel would get cheered over the world champ, due to a "He may be an asshole, but he's our asshole" mindset.

[Jingus]

The type of character they're portraying also has an effect. If a loudmouth coward type of heel gets beaten up by a big bruising monster heel, usually the crowd will cheer the monster. The Flair/Haku example above fits that type of scenario.

[khawk20]

The WWF did the odd ones on house shows in the mid-80's. Hart Foundation vs. Sheik and Volkoff from the Boston Garden comes to mind. Sheik and Volkoff won as I recall.

 

Those bouts always seem to come down to who the crowd hates more...the other team ends up getting cheered by default.

[Negro Suave]

Froma wrestler's standpoint there is no such thing as a heel vs heel or a face vs face match. Either the face does something heelish or the heel does something faceish to get over. I've personally never liked them unless we are setting up for a heel face turn or vice versa, then it makes since.

 

It's always seemed silly to me because it's build up for nothing you get these fans either cheering or booing someone and expect them to forget it a bit later why waste the opportunity to build something with that reaction.

[jdw]

Heel vs heel works well if presented properly. Look at Savage vs. Snake Roberts from SNME from 86 as an example. It did quite well in the DVDVR poll.

Sometimes fans are almost dying to cheer for a certain heel and loves it when they finally get the chance. The Roberts/Macho Man SNME match you mentioned was one time. Fans were really into Jake by that point and putting him up against Savage gave them a chance to finally cheer for him. It's pretty clear from that match that Vince was aware of that as Jake pretty much works it as a clear babyface.

It's not really a heel-heel match. Jake was the face. It's not that the match made Jake a face: they worked the match for Jake to be the face, even before the bell rang:

 

http://www.otherarena.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=2901#2901

 

On paper the match has issues because of WWF Fans difficulty in figuring out who to root for in Face vs. Face and Heel vs. Heel matches. They smartly get past that in the pre-match and early match. While the eventual layout of the match they work is clearly for Jake to seen as be the face of it and Savage to be the heel, the two don't leave it to the chance choice of the fans. Macho stooges for the boa and hides behind Liz in the pre-match. One the match starts, he continues to stooge for the now bagged boa, and also is the first to go to the hair pulling. The fans know who to root for, and who is the cowardly champ. This is smart stuff rather than trying to play a "slow burn" and hope that the fans are there with you when it comes time for Savage to lose his grip.

This is far from say the Barry vs Doc match at Starcade 1987 where Doc kinda-sorta is the "heel" because he takes advantage of Barry's mishap. In this one, Savage is the Bitch Heel Champ, and Jake works pretty much exactly like he does as a face once he fully turns. One could contrast it with Jake's just finished feud with Steamer, where he didn't work face. Whether fans thought he was cool or not, he was the heel in the Steamer feud... which just happened to end prior to this match, at the prior SNME if I'm not mistaken.

 

John

[jdw]

You have them brawl like Andre and Hansen did. Neither man lost any ground in their altercations. Andre laid in some good ones and Hansen held on to the end and delivered some of his own. And that's just from an image perspective. Why they don't do this anymore I don't know.

Good call. That popped into my mind as a Heel vs Heel match. It's a niche within it: Monster Heel vs Super Duper Monster Heel, so not everyone could work that. But it's a well worker heel vs heel match.

 

John

[Log]

Heel vs heel works well if presented properly. Look at Savage vs. Snake Roberts from SNME from 86 as an example. It did quite well in the DVDVR poll.

Sometimes fans are almost dying to cheer for a certain heel and loves it when they finally get the chance. The Roberts/Macho Man SNME match you mentioned was one time. Fans were really into Jake by that point and putting him up against Savage gave them a chance to finally cheer for him. It's pretty clear from that match that Vince was aware of that as Jake pretty much works it as a clear babyface.

It's not really a heel-heel match. Jake was the face. It's not that the match made Jake a face: they worked the match for Jake to be the face, even before the bell rang:

 

http://www.otherarena.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=2901#2901

 

On paper the match has issues because of WWF Fans difficulty in figuring out who to root for in Face vs. Face and Heel vs. Heel matches. They smartly get past that in the pre-match and early match. While the eventual layout of the match they work is clearly for Jake to seen as be the face of it and Savage to be the heel, the two don't leave it to the chance choice of the fans. Macho stooges for the boa and hides behind Liz in the pre-match. One the match starts, he continues to stooge for the now bagged boa, and also is the first to go to the hair pulling. The fans know who to root for, and who is the cowardly champ. This is smart stuff rather than trying to play a "slow burn" and hope that the fans are there with you when it comes time for Savage to lose his grip.

This is far from say the Barry vs Doc match at Starcade 1987 where Doc kinda-sorta is the "heel" because he takes advantage of Barry's mishap. In this one, Savage is the Bitch Heel Champ, and Jake works pretty much exactly like he does as a face once he fully turns. One could contrast it with Jake's just finished feud with Steamer, where he didn't work face. Whether fans thought he was cool or not, he was the heel in the Steamer feud... which just happened to end prior to this match, at the prior SNME if I'm not mistaken.

 

John

 

Everything you said is true, but Jake was technically still a heel for that match, right? I know he clearly wrestled as a face here, but he hadn't "officially" turned yet had he?

 

What was Jake's face turn? Wasn't it when Honkey clocked him with the guitar on the Snake Pit? Was that before or after the Savage SNME match?

 

Edit: So, after a quick wiki search:

 

In November 1986, Roberts challenged Randy "Macho Man" Savage for the Intercontinental Championship in a nationally televised match. Before the match, announcer Vince McMahon stated that the fans would probably support Savage against the disliked Roberts. However, to the surprise of both McMahon and fellow broadcaster Jesse Ventura, the fans cheered loudly for Roberts throughout the fight. The match ended in a double disqualification. Around this time, the WWF was trying to get a feud between Roberts and Hulk Hogan going, but after Roberts DDT'd Hogan during an episode of The Snake Pit, too many people started chanting for the DDT rather than for Hogan, forcing them to step away from this like it never happened.

 

He officially turned face when he feuded with The Honky Tonk Man, a heel with an Elvis impersonator gimmick. The Honky Tonk Man attacked Roberts[7] with a guitar during his interview segment The Snake Pit. In reality, The Honky Tonk Man's guitar shot legitimately injured Roberts' neck.[8]

[jdw]

I think we walked through this in an earlier post.

 

Looking at Graham's site, Jake was sort of in tweener-ville after the Steamboat feud. That was blown off with the 10/04/86 SNME (taped 09/13/86) where Steamer pinned him in a Snake Pit Match. There were Steamboat matches after that one was taped, but that was pretty common in those days: a feud would run here and there until the blow off aired, and might have a match or two here and there after that.

 

He had some George Steele matches in October, but that looks to be filler until his next feud.

 

They looked to be setting up a feud with JYD, and there are some matches out there... though JYD was also flaking out a bit around that time. They did have a Snake Pit moment on the 10/19/86 Challenge.

 

Hogan was on the Snake Pitt on 10/12 and 11/23:

 

10/12/86 Challenge (taped 9/17) - included WWF World Champion Hulk Hogan as a guest of the Snake Pit

 

11/23/86 Challenge (taped 10/29) - included WWF World Champion Hulk Hogan as a guest of the Snake Pit in which he told Jake Roberts off before abruptly leaving the set

Does either of those strike one at the "DDT" moment? Or did the WWF simply bury the tape of the DDT? Or is the source for the DDT from a Jake shoot where he's making shit up?

 

Anyway, back to what he was up to...

 

Matches with Savage on 10/22/86, 10/23/86 and 11/03/86 at the very least. These are in advance of the 11/29/86 SNME (taped 11/15/86) Jake vs Savage match. The WWF liked to do dry runs of matches, but three of them are a bit much... especially that far out.

 

Tito matches popping up, at least one of which is in circulation. That's also the type of thing that the WWF would roll out as fller: toss Jake with a solid face hand on a card when neither of them have much going on.

 

Some Slater matches, though that looks to be in prep to their TV match which was pretty much a throwaway.

 

For the clearest sign that he's in tweener-ville and they're trying to figure out what to do with him:

 

11/21 vs Harley

11/22 vs Harley

11/23 vs Tito

11/24 vs Tito

11/26 vs Tito

11/28 vs Tito

11/29 vs Hercules

11/29 vs Koko

11/30 vs Savage

 

Tito is sort of his "primary"... but it's not very clear.

 

By January it's a little more headed face:

 

01/01 Savage (cage)

01/02 Haynes (Tacoma)

01/03 Haynes

01/09 Steele (cage)

01/10 Bundy

01/11 Bundy

01/13 Reed

01/19 Bundy

01/21 Kirchner

01/22 Orndorff

01/23 Orndorff

01/24 Orndorff

01/29 Hogan

01/30 Garea (sub for JYD)

01/31 Piper

 

02/22/87 Challenge (taped 01/27): HTM guitar shots Jake

 

He gets some Kamala in Feb, but also gets legdropped by Hogan *after* SNME airs.

 

Anyway, looking at the results, he drifted into tweenerism after Steamer. It looked like they had some heel ideas (opposite JYD and potentially Hogan) but some face ideas as well (Savage and running him against quite a few others).

 

I honestly don't think Vince and Jesse were truly "surprised". The company was so careful of what they threw out on NBC, and had so much time to post produce it if needed, that they knew Jake was going to work the way he did. In fact, my recollection of the promos before the match were a bit of a hint where things were headed.

 

Why they left him hanging so long as a tweener, which was something I can't think of them doing to that degree very many other times? That's an interesting question. Don't know if we'd ever get a straight answer from any of them a quarter century later. :/

 

It's really strange to look back and see HTM winning with a pin at Mania over the fully turned and semi-hot Jake, who had Alice Cooper as his sidekick. About as clear sign as you can see that Vince had plans for HTM.

 

John

[Log]

So, as far as televised angles go, Jake had not turned before the Savage match. So, technically, it was heel vs. heel, though Jake does work it totally face.

 

It had to be confusing to be a WWF house show attendee in the 80's.