Wrestling morality

A bit of a philosophical question this time:


What do you think is the “better” way for a babyface to beat a heel: completely within the rules in order to impart the “fair play always wins in the end” lesson?  Or having the face KO the heel with a weapon (typically the very weapon the heel was trying to
use) or some other form of dirty play when the ref's back is turned for the poetic justice of the heel getting beaten at his own game, hoisted by his own petard?  To ask the question from another angle: is it more important for the hero to triumph, or the
villain to be humbled?

It's hoist, not hoisted.  

Anyway, depends on the villain.  The problem with Hulk Hogan is that he'd skip right to using the weapons against people who didn't do anything particular against him.  However, given the theatrical nature of wrestling, I think it's always a more satisfying payoff to see the heel get his comeuppance when possible.