Think thats the key to why Kingston is over. Just feels like a real person rather than playing a character
Television Tho Prop Grops Throps
- Thread starter Big-Red
- Start date
Think thats the key to why Kingston is over. Just feels like a real person rather than playing a character
Can it really be "over rating" given his popularity with "huge" sections of the fanbase?
I personally loved Wyatt's characters mostly (except for the Hardy tag team), so I'd happily see him in AEW.
Just seen it, and it's exactly what Punk needed, a feud that felt like it had some real needle.
He's at his best when he's angry about something.
Fair point. Maybe not, and maybe I’m in the minority thinking that he was just ok. As I say, I liked the fiend as it was something different, but I don’t get the ‘genius’ that people label him as
Considering how good he is at getting characters and feuds over despite constantly losing, and reinventing himself, I can see why he gets called it.
He's certainly no genius in the ring, and it would really help him to get in better shape, but his character work has been first class.
Yep. Kingston to be fair sold it really well, but if you're going to sign Punk use him for what he's good at, which is either being a heel or treading the line between face and real life arsehole.
His most boring spell in WWE was after they turned him full face and he just rode on the popularity he got from the Vince rant. He was great as a heel leading up to that and even better for a short while after just being a prick to anyone with any authority but getting cheered for it. Which funnily enough is also how Austin and The Rock became so popular.
Yeah that's probably fair. Reminds me of The Rock at his best when even as the top face he was basically a bit of a dick to everyone, but he was hilarious whilst doing so, and so got cheered.
Yeah exactly. The same with Austin. They were basically heels but just towards people that you wanted them to act like dickheads to.
I don't think it's quite as simple as being bad to the bad guys, because they'd usually tear down people who didn't deserve it like interviewers, other faces, etc.
Basically, if you're entertaining and charismatic while you're being an arse, then there's a decent you'll get cheered for it.
Punk is at his best when he's at his most natural, a bit of an arrogant cnut.
He isnt a babyface, you arent going for popularity. MJF is a lot less popular but a miles better heel
That's a bit like saying The Rock was a terrible heel because everyone loved him while he was one. Wyatt was popular because the characters were different, interesting, and well played, that kind of heel will often get cheered.
Plus, I don't think the fiend was ever really a heel - he was out avenging Wyatt's previous losses, which a lot of fans felt he should have won. Combined with being the top merchandise seller, I think they accepted early on that he was the good guy.
The Rock turned because he wasnt getting a heel reaction. He was a failing heel and a super over babyface.
Its harder to do that with a cult leader and obviously he doesnt have the charisma of The Rock. He would need to be a fairly different character to be a babyface, but he wouldnt have to go the whole hog. Orton is a good example where whether he is heel or face he's not that different. Mainly just a different target.
When a heel is getting a positive reaction you need to eventually turn them. Same with a face getting a heel reaction. Eventually they did it with Reigns and look where we are now
Orton is a good example, with some characters as long as you aren't getting no reaction then whatever reaction you get basically dictates face/heel. Wyatt is another like that, especially as the Fiend.
Anyway I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about here, if anything. I was simply making the point that, while Wyatt/Fiend might not be a few posters' cup of tea, he's generally really popular and would be an asset to AEW.
It's rare that you'll like everyone on a roster - I don't really get the Kingston hype most of the time, but as long as he's working for people I don't presume to say he shouldn't be around.
Orton gets the reaction they want. When hes a heel doing heel things to a face he'll get a heel reaction. When he's playing the straight man who still does some mean stuff but doing it to the heels he'll get enough cheers. Neither one is huge but he can do either with a similar character
I dont think doing cult man things to a heel makes it something to cheer for. And The Fiend was just doing something we've seen a billion times, at least in the ring. A guy who pretends nothing hurts. One thing they tried to do which has been done before but a bit less was the red lighting to make it feel different. Glacier used to have blue lighting for example in WCW. They scrapped it because you couldnt see much of what was going on with the fiend red lights, especially in the cage match he had.
I don't quite get what your point is. Somehow Wyatt is a failure because he gets cheered when he's supposed to be a heel? That would make so many people failures; Becki, Rock, SCSA, Hogan, etc. What about sing along with Jericho while he was Le Champion, or Adam Cole now. And that's just off the top of my head.
You're not a fan of Wyatt, and that's fine, but you've gotta accept that he has a huge fan base amongst wrestling fans, and that makes him an asset. Like I said, different strokes for different folks.
Yes. You need to read more posts in this thread, Becky obviously failed.
For what its worth I've had 1 match since starting training and im a heel
I don't "need" to do anything, I've read your opinions on Becki, I just wasn't interested in getting involved as it seemed like you were just anti WWE. And I say that as an AEW guy.
Failure depends on what you're trying to achieve - Becki "failing" to get booed was a huge success in getting over as a top face, so it's only a failure if the aim was heel or nothing. The aim was to get over, face or heel is just a vehicle for that.
By the same token, Wyatt "failing" to get booed while getting so over he became the top merchandise seller for a behemoth like WWE is only a failure if the aim was to not sell merchandise, or become popular.
Conveniently ignored the examples of heels in AEW getting cheered. Almost as if you have an agenda...
Anyone else’s first thought always Michael J Fox when they see MJF?
I'm waiting for the:
"I'm in the business and you're not" responses
"I'm in the business and you're not" responses
"Shut up, mark."
The only failure is getting no reaction. You can work around a face being booed or a heel being cheered but if fans are quiet, you're done.
I dont mind sharing what I've been taught about being a heel, including from an ex-NXT guy. If people think they know better I'm just going to laugh at that, it has no importance in the grand scheme of things
So if a heel isn’t getting booed and the crowd don’t want them to lose, they’ve failed? Heels are (generally) more interesting characters, and usually the ones I would want to win.
MJF gets cited as the best heel currently but I find him quite boring really (from the very little I’ve seen)…come out, say something along the lines of “wherever we are sucks”…it’s like the reverse of Foley’s cheap pop, right here in Redcafe forums.
My god you're self important.
This is nothing about being a heel, it's about what constitutes success. You're talking as if getting booed is more important than getting over. It isn't. Most of the biggest stars in wrestling are ones who failed to turn heel due to being cheered.
You're embarassing yourself here and not coming across well. If you think you understand the psychology behind being a heel, that's great. An ex NXT curtain jerker giving you his 2 cents regarding what constitutes a good heel doesn't mean he understands the first thing about what makes a good heel. It's just an opinion of someone who (I assume) wasn't good enough to make it to the main rosher.
And if he is suggesting that a heel is a failure because he gets chants (which is what one would logically infer from reading your posts), then it's clearly silly.
Yes a heel's job is to frustrate and annoy the crowd to add to the tension/enjoyment when the good guy comes back and beats them. Its a way to add on to what the face already brings to the table with the fire and determination to come back from a bad situation, cool moves and likability. You're there to make the star. And you do need some credibility and to get some wins so that beating you means something, but ultimately you're built up so that someone else beats you and it makes them a big star. A heel is not there to get themselves over as a fan favourite. Thats the opposite.
And you're free to like whatever you like, but thats one person. The above is geared towards the masses.
I'll add this to the pile of laughable posts by someone I have on ignore because its not worth taking the time to look at their posts when they are comfortable in their ignorance and will fight tooth and nail against any kind of knowldege on the subject. You havent used reason to get to your position, reason isnt going to dislodge you.
I would encourage you to go get trained, since you believe you are so well versed in wrestling and would clearly improve the business. We're all missing out.
Also, please please please when you explain to your trainers that you want to be a popular heel that sells merch, make sure you tell the story of their reaction here. I cant wait
Last edited:
Actually its "come join the business and show me how its done". Put your money where your mouth is.
Think it was Matt Hardy said Tony Khan hated Broken Matt so think its possible he wouldnt be too keen on something that wouldnt translate easily on tv and require a lot of special effects similar to The Fiends wwe run.
This is actually really entertaining now.
When nobody took his "I've had one match and am in the business" spiel how he meant it, which is "I have more authority than you", now he's just come out and said it.
It's easy to see why he's a heel, doesn't even have to get into character, just be his insufferable self.
Ekeke starting to sound like Jim Cornette in here. This isn't the 80's any more. The business changed when Steve Austin won KoTR 25 years ago.
Imagine taking a few wrestling classes and thinking you're suddenly some sort of authority on wrestling because you know a few rest holds.
It's like those blokes who chat shit in the pub about football when the most they ever done was jumpers for posts in the park.
It's like those blokes who chat shit in the pub about football when the most they ever done was jumpers for posts in the park.
If you're going to put everyone who points out the absurdity in your logic on ignore, I imagine that you'll have the entire thread on ignore.
The emotional post you've made essentially boils down to.."I train mate. I would know, innit?"
The onus is on you to explain why you think you have a better grasp on wrestling psychology than everyone else. Typing out paragraphs about how you are getting "taught" by NXT rejects doesn't lend credence to what you said.
If you have anything of substance to respond with, I'll be here.
You're all getting worked by Ekeke.
I'm friends with a British wrestler, one who has had far more than one dark match at some dingy sports hall. Seeing as he's a fairly well respected heel and taught me a couple of holds am I allowed to comment @Ekeke?
Yep, it's been obvious for a while when things descend into large long debates
I just wish the gimmick stayed in one thread
Thought this for a while. He definitely gets a chuckle out of it all, and I don't think he seriously believes half the shite he posts. Just knows it'll get a reaction.
Probably the best thing you'll read this year...
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts/eddie-kingston-aew-wrestling
Genuinely choked me up a few times.
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/posts/eddie-kingston-aew-wrestling
Genuinely choked me up a few times.