Kind of amusing and also alarming Rollins stat

But, but, but, it's 2015, there are no heels and faces anymore! This is the reality era!


Yeah, this is a problem.

I think Vince is so afraid of alienating the younger fans that they make heels lose 90% of their matches. They hinder a great heel just to please the fair-weathered fans. But in reality, the stronger your heels are, the more beloved you faces can become. Look at how hated Vince was for Austin. Or Piper for Hogan. Flair for Dusty. Triple H for Rock. Edge for Cena.

I miss the days when heels were just ignorant bastards. Besides maybe Kevin Owens, I can not think of one heel that wants to be the most hated guy in the room. But in this PC world we live in, everyone is afraid to ruffle any feathers. And it's sad.

The biggest stat of all is that he wins all his matches that are for the WWE World Heavyweight Championship.

That is the most important thing.

Worse than that the dude is barely a main event guy on PPV. Undertaker Lesnar main evented Summerslam and will main event HIAC. Seth did main event NOC but they had to dust off Sting and use John Cena to justify it. Hell more than likely a part timer will have a big match at SS in November.

From a financial perspective, i don't think they believe in him as a draw. I think his reign is being used to set something else up, sort of how Punk's reign was used to ultimately get the belt on Rocky and set up twice in a lifetime. The hope is to build up Seth's heat and make some babyface by having him beat him. Roman?

Historically when WWE has a heel champion, there is always an underlying motivation. Typically a babyface they are looking to get the belt to. In this case watch it be HHH to set up Rock vs Hunter for the title at Mania LOL. This board would explode.

exactly. you want the heel to be dasterdly,but also strong, winning matches by either fair or cheating means. you want that Heel to be hated, and built up, and frustrate the Faces time and again so that when a Face FINALLY breaks through and defeats the Heel, it means something, and is a huge deal.

Because the bad guy's always gotta be a coward so the face can look like a super hero.

When I say that I'm just tired of Seth Rollins, or that he's one step away from being channel changing material IMO, it's not because I dislike Rollins, because he is one of the best in ring workers currently. It's because they book him like a chicken s*** heel. I even used an example of a heel who hides behind authority, but when they have, they have the balls to step it up. Edge is the perfect example of a cowardly heel who also has balls when he has to have them. Every week, I have to see Seth Rollins bitching and complaining about the Demon Kane. Grow some f***ing balls Seth instead of bitching. Seth Rollins could have been an amazing heel, but creative has ruined any chance of me fully getting behind Rollins as a heel. I actually can't wait for him to lose the title. Maybe they'll turn him babyface against Triple H. I think that's the only way I can fully be a Seth Rollins fan again.

A champion who is only booked to win when the title is on the line does damage to his opponent too.

If Seth Rollins can't beat nine out of ten guys, but he beats number ten with the title on the line, number ten's credibility is immediately devalued, thus devaluing the match, thus devaluing the championship.

Just look at the Sting situation. They touted that match as a massive deal, and then never even mentioned it again the night after it happened. It didn't mean anything. Granted, a lot of that had to do with Sting's injury, but the message is very clear.

And a lot of it comes back to John Cena, too. Make him king at all costs. You can beat John Cena once, but the compromise is that you have to face him four more times, and lose every one of them so that by the time the feud is done, you forget you ever won in the first place. See: Seth Rollins, Kevin Owens, Rusev, just this year alone.

Honestly, the only time a win or loss matters to me is if it's a "winning the big one" or "losing the big one".

The "big one" can be a title, a final match in a feud, the final match of a tourney. A lot can be made out of one loss or one win, for anyone on the roster.

The wins vs losses isn't the problem. It's the ability of the match, or matches, to continually tell a story.

For example, Cena vs. Kevin Owens. That feud, and the FIRST match itself, told a fantastic story. Take away the outcome and there's a true story from the moment Owens interrupted Cena on Raw, to their first match. And then Owens "wins the big one" by beating Cena.

And from there, the story just went to crap. Both in the ring and out of the ring. In fact, the second and third match between these two was no different than the first match, outside of the winner. It attempted to tell the "same story" despite the fact that everything happening outside of the match (all the promos and segments and other matches) were telling a different one.

Undertaker vs HBK was great, because the build up to the feud and the match both told the same story.

There's an assumption of the attention span of the typical viewer now days, which I think leads to a lot of "jumping around" to try and appease multiple tastes at the same time. Which may never change, honestly.