Talk:Heel (professional wrestling)

message: The Hogan part of the article is defiantly POV and I'm removing it. 
Are there any examples? When did this concept first come about?
"Anglo"? Unless that's a wrestling term, I think you should come up with something better.
—Deadman1848 09:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I really dont think that this bit is entirely correct. 
I am of the opinion popularity is split in terms of "Heat" generated for Heels and the plotlines written for them. Good heat, good storylines, vox popping and  a maintained 'kayfabe' throughout the heel turn maintains popularity. The Heel is designed to bring in ratings so if there was no popularity then the heel would be a failure.    
Indeed, the majority of the more effective heels are the ones who often employ cheap pops to generate heat, either to maintain the overall heel characteristics or generate interest in the character. 
It should also be pointed out that the stronger heels tend to be the ones who have a greater level of creative control over character changes either though contract (E.G. Hulk Hogan) or experiance (Undertaker) 
I think there really needs to be clarification and distinction as to what is a Popular heel, e.g Ric Flair and what is an Anti-Heroic heel, e.g. Steve Austin. i.e. Even during his heal turn Steve Austin maintained the 'disestablishmentarian' persona that enabled him to be both a Face and a Heel. I am not going to edit without comments! Sparkyboi 23:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Heels?  

message: I have categorized Abyss under the crazy heel (as well as monster heel) category as without James Mitchell he is attacking people without provocation e.g. Andre Rison. Is this ok or does every wrestler have to be exclusive to one category? Thankyou, The Royal Blue 14:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abyss - crazy, monster or both? 

message: is more of a tweener
jericho turned heel recently, so its safe to say shawn won't be going heel right now. Kimmy78 (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  shawn 

message: I think these are really unnecessary categories. The sort of behaviour expected from a 'bully heel' is already covered under delinquent heels, and a rich heel is always egotistic with their proud displays of wealth.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.156.28 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bully and Rich heels 

message: Many announcers root on heels (such as JBL, and in the past Jerry Lawler). Does this deserve to be a category of heel? Myname100 (talk) 02:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  announcer heels? 

message: Control heels tend to be a variation of the monster/crazy/egotistical heel, and either controls his own stable members (such as The Ministry of Darkness), his valet, and/or controls his adversaries or any innocent victim(s) - usually through brainwashing or total domination.  This tactic is rarely used because it is very shocking.   The Undertaker in early 1999 would be a perfect example of this, he forced some of the people to join his stable by kidnapping them and brainwashing them.  XPac was successful in this during 2000 by taking Tori against her will (due to a stipulation of a match) and Tori turned on Kane within a month.  The most recent example is Mike Knox controlling Kelly Kelly for a time. Kimmy78 (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Control Heel 

message: Guys colin delayne is not heel .what action make him heel?
any action In fact the one who atack delayne brutaly should be consider a heel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabe0mac (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't you see when he turned on Tommy Dreamer and helped Mark Henry win at the Great American Bash? I don't really know what kind of a heel he is though...jobber heel? --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  aahh.... 

message: People, it needs to be realised that not every person who has ever been a heel can be added to these lists. This is not an exhaustive list of heeels and nor should it be. There are plenty of weel-known examples in the list. Adding in "the most recent" is completely pointless. People turn from face to heel and vice versa constantly. Please stop adding more examples. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists are not exhaustive 

message: The "types" section is unneccesary.  Look at Face (wrestling), which does a fantastic job of describing faces without going into excessive (and unneccesary) explanations. -- TRTX T / C 01:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um.....excessive... 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Blading (professional wrestling) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 14:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: ...ridiculous!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew quotation 

message: This is a sturdy, well-written article, and I appreciate that, since so many wrestling-related Wiki pages are, frankly, awful.  I just wish we could get some references going.  Having 2 references, and one of them be to a different Wiki's page, is just not sufficient for an article, particularly those of some length, like this one.  There's gotta be wrestling rules listed online somewhere, or a review of wrestling terminology, just anything that could be used that is considered a reliable source.  I'm going to see what I can find since I hate just passing the buck off to other Wikipedians, but I may not find much, in which case I hope someone could improve the page in that way. Thanks! "Yes...It's Raining" 16:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Kingdom for a Reference! (Followed by my having added many references)