Is Dolph Ziggler the WWE's Next Top Heel?

[Prince Bálor]

A perfect example
When Steve Austin returned from neck surgery in 2000, he investigated different superstars trying to find out who ran him over.
In this video, Austin stands by and watches The Rock get attacked without even batting an eyelash.

Skip to about 6:15 in. Once Ambrose begins doing this with regularity, then you'll have your answer.

Yeah, you're right.

Here's to hoping it won't take too long. But yeah, in all honesty, I won't be bummed if he doesn't evolve into an anti-hero character, I'll be cool with whatever Ambrose is doing, because he is just pure gold.

 

[Red Rain]

I'm always ready for an anti-hero. I love competition and I hate the hugging that goes on.
Wrestlemania 17 made sick. Austin and Rock respecting one another in their sit down interview before their match was unconstitutional.
Paul Heyman understands competiiton. WWE ripped off ECW in a major way, but make no mistake, ECW was the real deal.
Those days are over, but my idea of a perfect storm was when ECW, WWE and WCW were standing.

 

[Jacob Fox]

If I may interject and clarify what anti-hero really means.
An anti-hero would want to whip Superman or Aquaman's a**. It's something Stone Cold would do.
Dean Ambrose hasn't given any indication of that sort of behavior.

I have to disagree. I think that Dean Ambrose at this moment is a prototypical antihero.

An antihero is a protagonist who uses unconventional and unheroic methods towards his end, such as Dirty Harry or Snake Plissken. They still pursue the goals of the hero, they are still the "good guy," but they do in a Machiavellian way. The most important factor is that despite their methods, they still have to be a protagonist.

Dean Ambrose is very much an antihero at the moment. He is a protagonist who uses less than traditionally heroic methods to accomplish his goal. He wasn't fighting Seth Rollins nor currently fighting Bray Wyatt towards any noble purpose. It's revenge, which is completely fine, but revenge is a major motivator of an antihero.

 

[Jacob Fox]

And I assume Bray Wyatt would want to whip Superman or Aquaman's ass, right? That's what kinda makes him an anti-hero.

The only problem with that is that Bray is currently an antagonist. I think that his eventual face turn, which I think will definitely happen at some point, will make him an antihero. But as long as he's "the bad guy," so to speak, he's a villain, not an antihero.

 

[Red Rain]

I have to disagree. I think that Dean Ambrose at this moment is a prototypical antihero.

An antihero is a protagonist who uses unconventional and unheroic methods towards his end, such as Dirty Harry or Snake Plissken. They still pursue the goals of the hero, they are still the "good guy," but they do in a Machiavellian way. The most important factor is that despite their methods, they still have to be a protagonist.

Dean Ambrose is very much an antihero at the moment. He is a protagonist who uses less than traditionally heroic methods to accomplish his goal. He wasn't fighting Seth Rollins nor currently fighting Bray Wyatt towards any noble purpose. It's revenge, which is completely fine, but revenge is a major motivator of an antihero.

I see what you mean, but wouldn't that make him (as well as Dirty Harry) a tweener?
Steve Austin, in my view, was anti-hero in that he would eagerly kick Santa's a** (He actually did this December 22, 1997 on RAW), in front of children.
Anti-heroes would be the first people to kick a man when he's down or spit in the face of somebody with good intentions.
It seems Austin didn't like anybody, while Dean Ambrose only dislikes those who get in the way of his objectives.
I suppose its a fine line and maybe I'm reaching a bit, but I still see a difference.

If you recall Batman:The Animated Series, Catwoman would be my distinction as anti-hero.
As Selina Kyle she was an animal rights activist, but as Catwoman, she wouldn't hesitate to tussle with Batman

Would Dean Ambrose stand alone and watch Dolph Ziggler get beat down without lifting a finger? Maybe.
Steve Austin was also an alcoholic, hit women and even attacked Jim Ross in the fall of '97.

I realize men attacking women is taboo in WWE these days, but Ambrose just doesn't have that evil streak in him.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Anti-heroes would be the first people to kick a man when he's down or spit in the face of somebody with good intentions.
.

Not really. The actual term of antihero is sort of misleading. It makes it seem like the antihero is against heroes and that's not the case. An antihero is still a hero, he's still the good guy. It's just that he is not a good guy in the traditional sense. The traditional hero would follow a set of rules and they must remain somewhat virtuous in their mission. The antihero doesn't do this. He will accomplish his ends by any means necessary, but he is still a hero or good guy.

If someone were to spit in the face of someone with good intentions or kick a man while he was down, he would not be an antihero. He would be a villain. The only way he could be an antihero in that scenario is if the person he was kicking or spitting on was a villain and his actions would result in a greater good.

Dirty Harry is a antihero because he breaks the rules and does nothing by the book, but his intention is still to accomplish something good. If I am not mistaken, they are called antiheroes because they are in direct contrast with Aristotle's definition of a dramatic or tragic hero.

 

[Red Rain]

Not really. The actual term of antihero is sort of misleading. It makes it seem like the antihero is against heroes and that's not the case. An antihero is still a hero, he's still the good guy. It's just that he is not a good guy in the traditional sense. The traditional hero would follow a set of rules and they must remain somewhat virtuous in their mission. The antihero doesn't do this. He will accomplish his ends by any means necessary, but he is still a hero or good guy.

If someone were to spit in the face of someone with good intentions or kick a man while he was down, he would not be an antihero. He would be a villain. The only way he could be an antihero in that scenario is if the person he was kicking or spitting on was a villain and his actions would result in a greater good.

Dirty Harry is a antihero because he breaks the rules and does nothing by the book, but his intention is still to accomplish something good. If I am not mistaken, they are called antiheroes because they are in direct contrast with Aristotle's definition of a dramatic or tragic hero.

I believe you hit the source of our disagreement.
The use of anti- as a prefix leads me to believe that that particular organism or stimulus either antagonistic or fatalistic in its intentions.
In the medical field, the anti- prefix is a term used to designate stimuli that reduce or eliminate disease or sickness.
Likewise, I derived anti-hero to be someone who is actively acting to subdue the hero in some fashion.

In the context you presented, I see your rationale. I'm not completely agreeing with you, but in a topic such as this, a gray area is allowed.
Cool stuff. You've presented an ideology that I overlooked.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I believe you hit the source of our disagreement.
The use of anti- as a prefix leads me to believe that that particular organism or stimulus either antagonistic or fatalistic in its intentions.
In the medical field, the anti- prefix is a term used to designate stimuli that reduce or eliminate disease or sickness.
Likewise, I derived anti-hero to be someone who is actively acting to subdue the hero in some fashion.

In the context you presented, I see your rationale. I'm not completely agreeing with you, but in a topic such as this, a gray area is allowed.
Cool stuff. You've presented an ideology that I overlooked.

Thanks I appreciate doing that.

Actually you got me thinking about this a little bit more as well. I may have been wrong about Dean even fitting my definition. I mean, sure, he's the protagonist of the story, but is he really working towards a good end? I dunno. It's pretty subjective when you think about it, but you're right about the gray area.

 

[The GOAT]

Dean Ambrose definitely embodies the spirit of an anti-hero to me. Your typical hero would have worked with another hero (in this case, John Cena) to give Seth Rollins his comeuppance. But Ambrose told Cena that if he tried getting his hands on Rollins first, he would drop Cena just as soon as he would Seth, and he eventually did.

Furthermore, Ambrose left Cena high and dry the night they were supposed to wrestle Orton, Rollins, and Kane together in a handicap match on Raw, which led to Cena getting a collective ass-whooping by The Authority. He did eventually return, but only to get his hands on Rollins himself, and that was immediately followed up by him laying Cena out with Dirty Deeds. And you know what this distinctly reminds me of? The time Austin saved Mankind, Shamrock and one or two others from a beat down by The Hart Foundation, only for him to lay out Shamrock and then flip the bird towards Mankind afterwards (this occurred sometime in the Summer of 1997... shame I can't find a video of it anywhere on Youtube, though.)

 

[Stopspot]

So, Ambrose is something like anti-authority now, right? I wouldn't mind seeing Dean as an anti-hero, they kinda planted those seeds when he hit Dirty Deeds on Cena right before their Contract on a Pole match, it was kinda from behind. But it wasn't exactly heel-ish either, he got cheered for laying out the crowd's hero. Well, I mean the little children's hero.

And I assume Bray Wyatt would want to whip Superman or Aquaman's ass, right? That's what kinda makes him an anti-hero.

anti-authority does whatever he/she wants when he/she wants. Dean seems perfectly fine to follow his assigned schedule, talk shows and et cetera.

Dean is wacky, that's it right now

 

[The GOAT]

anti-authority does whatever he/she wants when he/she wants. Dean seems perfectly fine to follow his assigned schedule, talk shows and et cetera.

Dean is wacky, that's it right now

Stone Cold appeared on talk shows and in radio interviews back in the day, too. That doesn't mean he didn't oppose authority on the show.

 

[Red Rain]

Dean Ambrose definitely embodies the spirit of an anti-hero to me. Your typical hero would have worked with another hero (in this case, John Cena) to give Seth Rollins his comeuppance. But Ambrose told Cena that if he tried getting his hands on Rollins first, he would drop Cena just as soon as he would Seth, and he eventually did.

Furthermore, Ambrose left Cena high and dry the night they were supposed to wrestle Orton, Rollins, and Kane together in a handicap match on Raw, which led to Cena getting a collective ass-whooping by The Authority. He did eventually return, but only to get his hands on Rollins himself, and that was immediately followed up by him laying Cena out with Dirty Deeds. And you know what this distinctly reminds me of? The time Austin saved Mankind, Shamrock and one or two others from a beat down by The Hart Foundation, only for him to lay out Shamrock and then flip the bird towards Mankind afterwards (this occurred sometime in the Summer of 1997... shame I can't find a video of it anywhere on Youtube, though.)

Weren't Cena and Ambrose booked in a feud at the time, though?
Austin would seemingly attack babyfaces he wasn't even booked to feud with.

 

[The GOAT]

Weren't Cena and Ambrose booked in a feud at the time, though?
Austin would seemingly attack babyfaces he wasn't even booked to feud with.

Well, technically, no. Ambrose and Cena were both gunning for Rollins, and Dean wanted to make damn sure he got to him first, even if he had to hurt John Cena to make sure it happened.

I don't see the point in always comparing Dean Ambrose with Steve Austin. I know Stone Cold was the prototype of an anti-hero babyface, but that doesn't mean Ambrose (or any other hypothetical anti-hero) has to act exactly 100% like Austin's character would in any and every given situation. They're both still different people and may have different reactions to whatever it happening in a current scenario.

 

[Red Rain]

I do see the point. Austin would attack Jim Ross for asking d*ckheaded questions.
Austin unleashes, not because of a goal, but because he could.
I saw Austin attack Brooklyn Brawler for simply asking Austin if he could be his tag partner. A simple question and Austin whipped his a**.

Ambrose isn't anti-hero because he wouldn't attack somebody for the simple purpose of being a d*ck. His animosity toward Cena is competitive because Cena was standing between he and Rollins.

Austin was anti-hero because he would assault anything that moved despite their proclaimed innocence. The person didn't have to be feuding with Austin at all.

 

[The GOAT]

I do see the point. Austin would attack Jim Ross for asking d*ckheaded questions.
Austin unleashes, not because of a goal, but because he could.
I saw Austin attack Brooklyn Brawler for simply asking Austin if he could be his tag partner. A simple question and Austin whipped his a**.

Ambrose isn't anti-hero because he wouldn't attack somebody for the simple purpose of being a d*ck. His animosity toward Cena is competitive because Cena was standing between he and Rollins.

Austin was anti-hero because he would assault anything that moved despite their proclaimed innocence. The person didn't have to be feuding with Austin at all.

Again... Ambrose and Austin are two separate individuals. Just because two people fit a certain label doesn;t meant they both have to act accordingly with exactly how the other person would. It's like saying so-and-so isn't really a villain just because he or she doesn't act 100% like this other individual who is also a villain. Some villains murder, some don't. Some villains rape, some don't. Some steal, some don't. Some beat their children, some don't. Etc., etc. Same here. Ambrose doesn't have to act exactly the way Stone Cold would in any given situation to be considered an anti-hero and the fact that your entire argument basically rests upon this fact now feels like you're grasping at straws at this point.

Plus, Austin's character evolved overtime. When he started to become increasingly more popular throughout the Fall of 1997, he generally wouldn't attack babyfaces anymore without rhyme or reason, and they later even acknowledged his friendship with JR on-screen. He also became slightly more fan-friendly with how he would relate to them and ask them for advice with the whole "Give me a hell yeah!" shtick.