Dolph Ziggler, Miz and WWE's Heel Crisis: The Massacre of 2012

Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse more stories
Dolph Ziggler, Miz and WWE's Heel Crisis: The Massacre of 2012
Photo from prowrestlingroundup.com

We had seven matches at Money in the Bank.

A heel won once.

Nothing to look too deeply into right? Could it just be a statistical abnormality? A fluke?

Nope. In fact it's only another example of a disturbing trend going on in WWE: the heels don't win.

Just look, last month at No Way Out, there were nine matches, a heel again won only once.

The show before that? Over the Limit again had nine matches and one heel came out on top. What was the name of that up and coming heel superstar in the making? It was John Laurinaitis.

This is sounding monotonous, but at Extreme Rules, there were eight matches, and again only one heel won.

The last four pay-per-views there have been 33 matches. The babyfaces have dominated, winning 29-4.

29 to four?

That's not even close. It's not even a fair fight, it's a downright massacre.

What the heel is going on here?

It's long been shown that guys like Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger and The Miz usually end up on the losing side while guys like John Cena, Randy Orton and Sheamus are pushed as nearly unstoppable. But does every face need to be so dominant? Does every heel need to be so pathetic?

Who is your favorite heel?

Submit Vote vote to see results

 

The best heels are tough, they back up their talk, they can even outsmart the hero from time to time. People paid to see Hulk Hogan take on Andre the Giant because he looked unstoppable. Andre could destroy everyone on the roster, except for one.

And when those two faced off, it was iconic.

Remember "the unstoppable force meets the immovable object"?  What heels are unstoppable these days? Who can actually make the fans believe that Cena or Punk have finally met their match?

While WWE is making half the roster look strong, the other half is suffering, and they're doing a ton of damage to their company.

WWE needs to remember that a good guy is only as strong as his nemesis.

It's a game of give and take. The very top good guys should win in the end, but they at least needs a challenge.

Batman wouldn't be Batman without The Joker, Luke Skywalker needed Darth Vader to be a hero. Without them, what are they fighting against?

Likewise, WWE babyfaces need strong heels. Besides The Big Show, there are none. Even Big Show is made to look like a fool quite often.

No heel in the company can talk a big game and back it up. They're either cast as chickens or delusional. Where is a Ryback type character who mows down faces? 

 

It's hard to build up intriguing matches and get people to buy your shows when there are no credible villains. People pay because their hero is in jeopardy, and they want to see if he can overcome the odds. People don't pay to see a villain get dominated every time out.

Would people go see The Dark Knight Rises if Batman beat up Bane five minutes into the film, stripped him down to his underwear and poured barbecue sauce all over him?

No, Batman is going to have to sell and put Bane over. That's how movies work, that's how books work and that's how wrestling should work.

People like to root for the underdog, to see their hero go on his journey and return victorious in the end.

But if the odds are always on the side of the good guy, then who really is the underdog?

Load More Stories
WWE

Subscribe Now

We will never share your email address

Thanks for signing up.