Loss

These days, what type of discussion interests you the most between these choices? * Behind the scenes talk (Examples: Nash not passing a physical, plans for upcoming shows, Punk angle) * Gossipy/salacious stuff (Examples: Linda McMahon's campaign, Matt Hardy in rehab, Melina is a psycho) * Best/worst stuff (Examples: Jerry Von Kramer threads) * Match reviews and wrestler discussion (Examples: Yearbook threads, HOF discussion) It all has a place, and this isn't to decry anything, but more just to call it as I see it. I personally wish there was a lot less of the first two and a lot more of the last two. If anyone sees it differently, that's fine. I'm not coming at anyone, but I thought this would be an interesting topic. If you disagree, I'd love to hear your reasons.

A good working heel has good matches. I don't understand the distinction. I don't know that he has them. I am not bashing DiBiase. Yes, he was seen that way. That's my whole point. That's why I think it's a copout to refer to him as primarily a brawler. Producing a list of awards and how he was talked about in commentary doesn't really prove anything except that he was considered a good technical wrestler, but not that he actually was one. That is where the video footage comes in, and the footage just isn't there. Fair enough point. I would like to see them all listed. If he's the master, I am thinking there are probably a dozen or more matches that we can point to that are really excellent 10-minute matches. That has nothing to do with being a bad heel and everything to do with being a good performer. Wrestling fans tend to take ownership of their heels after long runs. As Jim Cornette once described it, they may be assholes, but they are our assholes. It happened to Ric Flair too. I don't think you can hold that against a heel -- since it's nothing they have any control over -- unless their pops are actively hurting the babyfaces they are working with *and* they are using the situation to make the babyface look bad. Trying not to jump on you too much, but you have a tendency to focus on post-prime of guys to make cases against them. Wrestlers getting old and not being as effective as they once were isn't a reflection of anything except that their best days are over. It happens to every wrestler. It's inevitable. And not to belittle your overall point, but none of this does anything for me, because there are no real examples cited in any of this. The match you reference is hypothetical. A match list (a long one, not just "his matches with Savage" -- which are really disappointing to me) would be helpful. If you ignore all the other good matches, it's the best of the matches left? I'm going to challenge you on some of those names. How can you make the case against Rude and for Perfect? DiBiase I get, but Mr. Perfect is probably the most overrated run in wrestling history. He had more good matches than most of his peers, but he took over a year and a heavy heavy push to even get over in the WWF, bombed at the gate when he got a chance as a headliner, and I don't remember any unusual heat compared to the other big WWF matches during the era. Brian Pillman was a flash in the pan as a heel. I'd consider him more in the discussion for babyfaces. Hollywood Hogan should absolutely be in this. Completely reinvented himself and managed to have a once-in-a-lifetime run ... twice.

It should also be mentioned that I can't recall Rude sitting in a chinlock very often, if at all. The camel clutch was his "resthold" of choice more often than not. Side tangent: We've been through this before, but I look at resthold as a derogatory term, and I try to stay away from it. Wrestling would be better off now if fans were educated on holds and trained to pop for them. Restholds do exist, but if something serves a positive purpose in the course of a wrestling match, I don't agree with calling it a resthold. Laying on the mat and not doing anything does stink, but I think it's oversimplifying to immediately call anyone going to a reverse chinlock someone applying a resthold. (Not directed at you specifically, Jerry, more one of my many frustrations with how Scott Keith has influenced online opinion.)

Rude is strange in that he was solid in the ring pretty early, but didn't really put the whole package together as a persona until the Jake feud ... when his in-ring dropped off for some reason. Then he got good again in the Warrior feud and really went to the next level when he cut his hair. By the last quarter of 1992 or so, it was obvious he was working hurt and he was never really at the same level again, even if he had the occasional good match. So maybe you could say Rude hit his peak as an all around performer from August 1989 - August 1992. I like some of the Rude/Dustin matches in '93, but they aren't at the level they would have been a year earlier because Rude seemed to be working through some pretty bad injuries. So when I praise Rude, that's the period I'm talking about. I agree that the Flair matches are disappointing. I definitely don't think Rude is the best heel of all time, and he's probably not even in the top handful, but had he sustained his peak longer, he would be in the discussion. Replacing Flair as the top heel in WCW was really fighting a losing battle considering how badly the audience wanted Flair back in the company, but Rude seemed fresh enough in that role that I would argue even if Flair was still around, the time was right to give Rude a bigger spotlight and keep Flair strong, but slowly move him out of the top heel spot. Sting/Rude, while there's not that defining match, had its moments. The Clash match where Rude won the U.S. title is too short to be considered "great", but I always thought that was about as good as a match of that length with that storyline could be, and it was executed in pretty terrific fashion. The Clash match one year later really disappointed me when I watched it recently, although I remembered loving it. They never really had that singles match on PPV in 1992 for the world title, and had they, we might have seen a better match. There is a handheld of a house show match between them that I've never taken the time to watch. You mentioned DiBiase. DiBiase was an excellent heel too, and someone I'd probably rank above Rude just because he had more years as a top performer. Both are guys that reinvented themselves at the right times. DiBiase's best matches looked better at the time, while I think Rude's best matches look better now. I don't think DiBiase was a particularly "good" promo, but he was an effective one. Still, the argument against DiBiase is the same one it's always been -- where are the great matches? This may prompt goodhelmet to come in and talk about how he never saw DiBiase as a great wrestler, but rather as a great brawler, and surely the all stips match with Duggan will be brought up to point to that. But I think that's a bit of a copout, because DiBiase isn't talked about in the same breath as Hansen, Brody and Cactus Jack. He's considered more in the Flair/Windham/Michaels mold, and I think he falls short by that standard. I'm not sure what DiBiase has that isn't gimmicked to death that can touch Rude's amazing carry job of Warrior at Summerslam '89, or Rude's strong matches against Chono and Steamboat in '92. For that matter, I'm not sure what I'd point to for DiBiase that compares nicely to the TV matches Rude had with Pillman and Dustin in '92. Four matches that would make an interesting comp in that vein: * DiBiase vs Shawn from Hottest Matches * DiBiase vs Bret from '89 * Rude vs Pillman from Pro in '92 * Rude vs Dustin from Worldwide in '92 Top heel vs perfectly capable midcard babyface, given a nice amount of time to put together a good match. All matches are really well-regarded, and it would make an interesting comparison.

Fuerza Guerrera should be mentioned too. Constantly being in the wrong place at the wrong time, being completely willing to make himself look like the biggest fool on the planet and pretending to not be able to execute big moves that his opponents have tried to more strongly put over their athleticism in contrast are some of his staples, and they're great. I don't think he's quite at the top level because I could never buy him as credible, but for pure entertainment value, he's one of the best.

Yeah, Dump Matsumoto is the greatest heel of all time. When your counter to a side headlock is to cut your opponent's hair until they let you go, you immediately win.

I will mention that I love tag teams of monster heels and undersized heels, where the smaller heel ends up talking them into trouble and then hiding behind the monster. Mark Henry needs a sniveling, motormouthed runt of a sometimes tag team partner yesterday!

We have no way to judge calling it in the ring, because we don't know which matches are laid out in advance and which ones aren't. That's also something that may not fully be in the control of the performer, and could vary by territory or era. I agree on all the rest.

I would disagree with Lars. I think his point is right ... when talking about wrestling in the early part of the 2000s, but not now. The bigger problem is that heels aren't allowed to look good for any length of time and maintain heat. A babyface can likely overcome even Steven booking because they're constantly getting their wins back, but heels who are constantly shown up are going to struggle to stay over.

In terms of understanding his own role, making people who were pretty limited look great, taking great bumps, having a strong formula, feeding a comeback, doing promos, getting heat and selling his ass off while maintaining his own credibility, Rick Rude is my pick.

It has a track record of happening with Mark Henry. He was falsely blamed for botching the opening of a cage door and falsely blamed for injuring Batista, for starters.

This will be the "longuest" feud ever in the history of WWE if that happens. Lawler was Henry's very first opponent in 1996 (some IYH in September or October) if I remember correctly. 15 years in the making. I meant it will be used online in the future as evidence that Mark Henry is bad at his job.

I have this sneaking suspicion that this story will morph into "Mark Henry carelessly injured Jerry Lawler" over time.

Wow. Looks like we need to start the push for Groups again as a way to get the Dynamite Brothers in. BTW, since Cien Caras (and the Dynamite Brothers) were clearly a big draws, what would keep Cien out of the HOF? Could it be... Work? Can we put to bed the notion that Dave only looks at Wrestling now as Business and that it's the over riding thing on his HOF voting? Cien's work is enough to keep him out (though not enough to keep Carlos out). It's a pretty clear sign that work still has a big impact on Dave's voting. John Did he say work was the reason he was never a HOF guy? If not, I'm putting anything to bed.

The Muppets on Raw could be outstanding with good writing. That's a big "with". (They may even be great without it.)

Everything with him is through a Jim Herd/Eric Bischoff/Hulk Hogan-tried-to-kill-my-hero lens.

Punk beating Cena two months in a row, then losing to Del Rio and Cena, then Punk losing to HHH and Cena beating Del Rio. Yikes. They have no clue of how they want to position people or where they want to go long-term. None. There needs to be room for reactive thinking in booking plans without a doubt, but WWE would improve so much if someone would put together something that says where they want to be in 3, 6 and 12 months and book backwards from each of those points. Vince used to always do that. I do think politics played a part in all of this getting so bad, but I think the bigger issue is incompetence and that the system itself is broken. This is the consequence of not thinking past the next Raw. Had they played their cards right, Punk could just be returning right about now and they'd have something really hot to carry them until Rock comes in to start building the Cena match.

Vader bumped like a pinball for Sting. Sting took him off his feet multiple times. That's one of the things that made the matches so great.

There is absolutely a difference being an organic comeback where the babyface gets punched in the face, finally has enough and loses their shit, and Hulk Hogan deeming the first 95% of a match meaningless. I don't know what to tell people who can't see the difference when they watch the matches. It's not a structural issue, rather it's one of timing and execution.

I've kinda changed my tune and decided I don't have a problem with a no-selling comeback. We all have wrestlers we like who have done it and wrestlers we don't like who have done it -- the details are in the execution. If someone can pull it off in a way that seems organic and fits the tone of the match, good for them.

I haven't watched ROH in forever, but I'm curious -- why isn't Cornette booking ROH in his own style?

I can see that point, but Shawn in 1993-1994 I thought was clicking on all cylinders as an interview and in the ring.

After recently watching all of his 1996 footage (the yearbook has every single PPV title defense and notable TV match from Shawn that year), I actually agree with Paul. He wasn't as effective as a babyface for many reasons that would derail this thread to get into, but the no-selling after the comeback wasn't really the issue with him most of the time, nor was it the way that matches were laid out. I think the bigger issue is that Shawn just wasn't likable enough to be a great babyface, and him trying to be likable felt forced. I can see why Shawn spent most of his time as a singles star as a babyface, meaning I see why Vince thought that was a better fit for him. But really, being a heel played to his strengths so much more. I like Shawn during 1996, for example, and thought he was a good champ who did his best when challenged with terrible booking, weak opponents and a crowd that was turning on him because of how he was presented. But I like Shawn in 1997 as a self-absorbed, disrespectful riot starter so much more. He was definitely a very good babyface at times and it's not insane to put him in the conversation, but for me, I can think of so many guys who pull those things off better. Shawn was miscast for almost his entire career; I wish he had spent more of his peak years as a heel.

The first 10 minutes of every 20 minute-long Rock & Roll Express match has tons of heel lack of coordination spots, good offense and more often than not some good comedy too. That's my reason for picking Ricky Morton in that category.

But ... my answers would be Ricky Morton, Ricky Morton, Ricky Morton, Ricky Morton and Ricky Morton. In that order.