Bad to the Bone: Why Does WWE's Mature Audience Likes to Support Heels?

Most wrestling promotions will push their audiences into admiring babyfaces and hating heels. WWE is no different, yet the majority of fans hold a healthy dose of both sides within their preferences.  Taking the latter fact into account, it must be pointed out that WWE’s mature audience (especially IWC members) inclines its admiration towards heel competitors.

Why?

Is evil more appealing for us? Are heel wrestlers more interesting in their character? Do we hate good guys because they make us look bad? Maybe several incredible, total package performers just happen to be aligned with the dark side at the moment (e.g., CM Punk). The truth might be a complex amalgamation of numerous answers, though it must be pointed out that there’s a reason most people are not aware of.

Adult WWE fans probably support heels because they are real life underdogs.

Movies like Star Wars Episode IV: A new Hope, Rocky and Gremlins proved that audiences in general find it easier to identify themselves with characters representing an everyday life person who faces extraordinary situations with low chances of success. In an environment where outcomes are meant to progress storylines driven by a business which, coincidentally, is focused on children at the moment, good guys will almost certainly win while bad guys, in turn, lose. This means we expect defeat in major battles and feuds for WWE’s heels; hence they’re immediately transformed in the underdogs within the corporation.

Most John Cena matches are supposed to symbolize cycles of adversity, struggle and ultimate victory over the odds that we go through in our lives; the kids get it (not that they’re really aware of it, though) and cheer in response. We, on the other hand, know this man represents an ideal, a fantasy that cannot be reached by us living inside the real world, and boo in response to the fallacy.

Yet (because they don’t know better) children cheer for the unstoppable good guys, just like we cheered the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, G.I. Joes, and Hulk Hogan back in our childhood. And just like in those days, bad guys in today’s WWE only seem to score minor victories used as tension builders to keep action interesting for the rest of the episode until the company’s heroes smash them for the Nth time. Adult fans feel empathic, identified in a way, and thus show support for those performers in the losing end of the match.

The already alluded CM Punk is a great example of the heel competitor turned real life underdog. He’s the company’s ultimate bad guy not only because of the great job he does at delivering the character, but also due to suffering the fate that only the worst of the bad could meet. CM Punk, though still relevant, is going through a long-running losing streak at PPV’s.

Since his downfall to the Undertaker at Hell in a Cell 2009, the "Straight Edge Superstar" has been constantly humiliated by the competitors he’s battled through 2010 and 2011.  Bad guys have to lose in the end, and adult wrestling fans know it; so, when exposed to Punk’s struggle against the system to stay relevant and seek victory, fans sympathize with him even more despite his great personification of  a heel wrestler.

Perhaps the best example of the real life underdog within WWE is Zack Ryder. While I don’t recall his heel/face alignment at the moment, the Long Island resident oozes the stated concept.

Ryder has gained quite a following through YouTube videos and Internet social media, constantly making jokes and parodies about WWE’s unwillingness to push him beyond jobber extraordinaire. Zack Ryder has marketed himself to the audience as the real ultimate underdog through tactics mirroring that of an underground political campaign. The move is genius and has paid off substantially, as fans respond to this man’s war on the company and audience indifference.

Then again, it must be noted that not every wrestler stomped by Vinnie Mac’s shinny corporate shoe will be receptor of a mature audience’s sympathy. No one will classify a wrestler as underutilized unless potential is perceived and thus a small campaign constructed on personal opinion is built to show support for the cause. An underdog must have enough qualities that make the efforts worth something.

So if any of you people reading this piece find yourselves rooting for a bad guy in WWE, consider the reason behind it might have to do with your personal identification with any sort of “uncommon winner.”