 |
| The Man, and the best evidence against "All faces, all the time" Photo Credit: WWE.com |
As with some habits and practices of wrestling bookers everywhere, the "send 'em home happy" was never really based on science. It was empirical data gathered from years of promoting. However, it appears that someone actually put this notion to a study, which I came across at Cracked. Of course, an irreverent website dedicated to humor might not seem like the best source for such a study, but after reading the various listicles they've published over the last few years or so, I've found that the writers do their homework.
The study, which you can find here at Science Daily, had their groups of people watching a speed skating race between two athletes that no one in the crowd knew a thing about. They were told that one skater was virtuous and heroic and all those other things that old-timey sports fans tell you is great about athletes. The other skater was described as a lout and a braggart. Clear heel and babyface roles were defined to the crowd. The race footage that they were shown was generally closely-contested and exciting. What they found was regardless of who won the race, the subjects enjoyed watching it unfold. Yes, they rooted for the good guy to win over the bad guy, but their satisfaction level was not tied to who won. They left the room happy regardless, mainly because the race itself was thrilling.
If this study were presented to, say, Vince McMahon, it might open his eyes. IF only there were empirical evidence of it working in wrestling. Oh wait, there is. In the 1980s, the National Wrestling Alliance hitched its cart to Ric Flair to run as their Champion for 73% (give or take a few percentage points for the number of disputed reigns that aren't exactly recognized) of the total number of days between January 1, 1980 and December 31, 1989. Most of that time, he was a stone cold heel, the cool playboy who knew he was better than the average fan and wasn't afraid to let them know it. If a condescending prick like Flair could hold the Ten Pounds of Leather and Gold for nearly three-quarters of a hot decade without the NWA system imploding on itself, then the theory has to have some kind of weight in pro wrestling.
It's not like WWE right now is lacking for quality bad guys anyway. If anything, their heroes oftentimes are far less compelling than their villains are. I look at Ryback as the best example of this. While I quite dug his existential feeding machine good guy persona, when he turned heel and went all Bond villain to back up his hulking frame, I tapped into a vein that I didn't think existed within the man. That is a fleeting example based on anecdote, mind you, but at the same time, who would argue that, aside from Daniel Bryan and Kane, that the most interesting people on WWE's roster right now are all baddies? Damien Sandow, Paul Heyman, Alberto del Rio, AJ Lee, The Shield, and especially Mark Henry all have these bright auras around them. They have fully formed thoughts, feelings, emotions, motivations. Meanwhile, John Cena reacts to his "awful" year by cutting jokes and winning matches, while Sheamus is the world's most articulate version of Ogre. Consistently good stories are never told by having the good guy be a constant strain of awesome for three acts, no matter what Triple H thinks.
In other words, as there is with anything, there is more than one way to send a crowd home happy. It's not even just confined to sports either, as the most critically acclaimed Star Wars movie was the one where Luke Skywalker found out his dad was a genocidal maniac and his best friend got encased in carbonite. Catharsis, while a powerful component to a story, is not necessarily needed for it to be good, especially when it's an ongoing serial like professional wrestling. Sometimes, the bad guy has to win. Sometimes, the good guy can't be the conquering hero.