What defines a heel or face?

I got into an interesting debate with Shane Helms (yes you read that right) over Twitter earlier today.  I was actually pretty shocked....we exchanged 8-10 tweets with each other.  Now, if you've read my blog before, you probably know that my opinion of Helms the adult is not very high.  I find him to be extremely infantile and rude.  I mean, could you imagine any 37 year old in your life calling people retards and making "your momma" jokes?  So due to that, I was very, very sure to keep things civil and level-headed, as I didn't want the discussion to stoop to the level of being called stupid (which I was at one point) or a "dipshit" (which he called another person that argued with him).  Anyway, check out my Twitter feed if you want the specific transcript.

The topic of conversation was what determines whether somebody is a heel or face?  In my view, it's a combination of many obvious things.  But Helms seemed to exclusively lie with crowd reactions.  If a person being pushed as a face gets booed, he's now the heel.  If the heel gets cheered, he's now the face.  And it's up to the individual to act accordingly.  This was apparently spurned when a fan might a comment that being cheered doesn't make you a babyface (a stance I personally agree with).  Helms' response:  "Fans cheering is a babyface reaction! It’s not rocket science dipshit!"  There's that mature 37 year old adult, folks!  He went on to say (in several tweets):  "While the Heel/Face line is obviously more blurred than in the days of old, the fans reactions are the judge. Cheers=babyface reaction. Duh!  If you’re getting boo’d…waitforit…that’s a Heel crowd reaction. That simple enough for ya? :-)"

My stance, which I expressed to Helms, is that your status as a heel or face is determined by several different things.  Yes, the crowd reaction is an incredibly important facet, but equally important (or perhaps even more important) is the concerted effort in which you are pushed and presented.  For example, if you put John Cena up against Daniel Bryan, no matter the way the fans react, I don't think anybody would dispute that Cena is the face and Bryan is the heel.  A face is not only defined as being a fan favorite, but it's also defined as being a hero (and likewise, the heel is the villain).  Yes, there have been anti-heroes like Steve Austin and unlikable guys like the Rock, but they've also been pushed as people who had to overcome the odds against a sinister enemy.  

And, again, matches are typically structured so that the face starts off strong, the heel takes control and dominates the majority of the match, and the face gets a fiery comeback.  To ignore that is just a close minded view of the dynamic.

Helms didn't seem to much appreciate my view, calling his view the "facts."  His tweet:  "No, what I said was FACT. Trying to argue with over 20 years of experience vs NONE is just stupid."  There you go, I was called stupid.  And that remark actually struck a nerve with me, because I DETEST when wrestlers use the "you're not in the industry so you have no idea what you're talking about" mentality.  Honestly, outside of doctors and lawyers, does any other professional make that claim?  Helms isn't the only one who has used it, and it drives me crazy every time (I remember Lance Storm was once called out on a clearly botched move, and he remarked about how the person had never been in the ring before).  When it became apparent that he was going to resort to that, I stopped talking.  Shockingly, HE kept talking to ME.  

I basically told him that I would never dispute with him who is a better worker, but I don't think you need to be in the industry to have an opinion on what defines a heel or face.  His response was an obnoxious "Do you go tell doctors how to operate too?"  I was tempted to say, "You're no doctor."  Instead I told him he wasn't making a fair comparison and that I would never tell him how to execute a move.  He answered "But you’re trying to tell me crowd reactions. That’s a HUGE part of our biz. A biz I’ve been very successful in."  Again, resorting to that "I'm in the business so I know" mindset.

So in response to his "I've been in the industry for 20 years and I've been successful, I followed up with "If I asked McMahon who his top face is and he said John Cena, would he be right?"  This was basically a trap because McMahon has been in the industry longer and has experienced more success than Helms.  And, if asked, I legitimately DO think McMahon would answer "Cena."  So -- going by Helms' logic -- how could they have two different mentalities?  Helms' perspective is based on FACT because of his experience and success in the industry.  If it's fact (based on that criteria), how could McMahon have a different answer?  He seemed to relent and answered:  "From a merch standpoint Cena is the ultimate babyface!! Lol And that’s a FACT :-)"  After that, we seemed to agree to disagree and even made a little idle chit chat.  Incidentally, the entire time I was getting messages from other people about what a dick he was being.

And for what it's worth, Shane Helms isn't the only one who thinks this way regarding the definition of a heel or face.  I've heard Seth Mates call John Cena the biggest heel in the company (he's said, "Cena doesn't need to turn heel, he's already the biggest heel in the company").  I just don't agree with this line of thinking.

So what do YOU think is the primary determination of what makes a heel or face?  It's obviously a combination of both, but is it fan reaction or the way you're presented by the company?