Defying Booking Logic
 

There are formulas in professional wrestling. Good guys VS. Bad guys. Tweeners vs. Everyone etc.

With such a strange and evolving WWE audience, however, I wonder how much of the old way of doing things is relevant now. Could a heel stable go to war with another heel stable and fans still care or tune in? Would the fans just shit on both teams or would the reaction be mixed with some fans rooting for one team over the other? How often has this been done in the past with heels feuding with other heels?

For the wrestling historians (Noid) I'd also like to ask if giving Giant the title in 95' was well-received by the fans considering it went against a lot of established booking logic (an almost complete unknown wins the top title in his first match). Was this the exception to the rule? Would this work today? (Does TNA count?)

Corporation vs. DX vs. Ministry of Darkness in late '98-early '99 comes to mind. It doesn't seem to work, at least it didn't back then. With the youth movement in marketing for WWE I think the apathy would probably be more noticeable from live audiences, perhaps even ratings

I thought DX was face during that period.

They were but the other 2 stables were not. Bossman v. UT at WM15 was the apex of the feud allegedly. No one cared

Well, that match was horrible and just an excuse to later swerve everybody with the McMahon reveal.

Heel/Heel matches are always awkward, has to be at least one bbyface for it to work.

Angle vs HHH at one of the Rumbles was the last big heel vs heel match IIRC though. It was v. boring until Austin came out.

I don't really remember any heel/heel fueds outside the Corporation VS. Ministry and I don't think I could name more than 3-4 heel/heel matches off the top of my head.

Yes at least for the short term with the New Nexus vs The Corre as the most recent example.

The fans wanted to see both group go at each other during the 40-Man Rumble match although the WWE messed that up badly with the entry numbers making a stable fight impossible. Also didn't help Cena and Hornswoggle single-handily eliminated the New Neuxs on their own.

The audience now is geared MORE toward face vs heel being the norm.

As for great heel vs heel feuds, you could count HBK vs Bret in '97 though Bret had the weird "only a heel in the US" thing.

I just feel like the WWE has enough generic faces fighting generic heels it at the very least wouldn't make much difference.

It wouldn't to me. Matches and feuds outside the main event don't amount to anything anyway. But the kids need someone to root for.

Sheamus and Orton had a short Heel vs Heel feud So did Taker/Kane w/ Austin as the guest ref.

I guess solve it by having more triple threat matches?

I actually really enjoy heel vs. heel matches. I mean, one of the bad guys is certainly usually the lesser of two evils, but even as a mark I found two villains beating the crap out of each other kind of fresh and enjoyable.

I recall 1995 Giant receiving tons of boos and thumbs down even considering the heat machine and fan plants. My friend, who liked him until Giant joined the nWo, was in the severe minority.

Shawn Michaels vs Rick Martel at Summerslam with the No Hitting In the Face stip was a great heel vs heel match.