Growing up, and even as an adult, I have come across so many fans who consider The Champions to be a second-rate group. A fellow comic fan (who I know in real life) once told me they were a 'poor man's Defenders'. Others have said they cannot compare to either the Avengers or Defenders.

Why is the perception out there? I'd particularly welcome views from devout followers/fans of The Champions.

I read very little of the book as I grew up. I guess I enjoyed what I did read. Of course, the Avengers are (were?) Marvel Comics' flagship team. And the Defenders, whilst not quite a full-time team, were very good, also. So what is it about the Champions that results in them getting so much flak? 

Is it perception?

Are they seen as a filler team?

One guy I spoke to years ago said that the team were second-rate because surely, if they were good enough, the members would have been either with the Defenders or Avengers. He was a football fan and used the analogy that they were like players who the main teams didn't want so were given spots on a minor league team. Is that a fair assessment to make?

I guess I can understand that perception, no matter how fair or unfair it may be. The Defenders aren't really a team, anyway, more of a loose alliance. The Avengers are definitely a team. And spin-off teams like the West Coast Avengers certainly had a place, I felt. But even as a kid, and I was not a kid who overthought stuff, I did have a thought or two about whether the Champions were assembled purely because the characters were at a loose end and someone wanted to give them a "home".

I guess my analogy would be those politicians who aren't quite good enough to occupy certain cabinet positions like Attorney General or Secretary of Defence - so the Prime Minister/President/whatever gives them an obscure cabinet position in a little-known department where they can serve a role. We have perhaps all know politicians like that: not considered worthy of a senior or important cabinet role so shoved aside and given an obscure role somewhere else. 

I'm sure, on their own merits, The Champions have had some memorable moments. Like I said, I've raised some issues, not necessarily stated facts or come to any solid conclusions. For better or for worse, and this is a topic I've raised with fellow fans at comic cons and elsewhere, there does appear to be a perception that the Champions are lesser than other groups and that the members, if they were good enough, would have been selected to be Avengers or Defenders.

Any thoughts?

***

This is the mindset I come across often. I can understand it. My analogies may be imperfect, but using the political one, it does feel like one of those MPs left without a position - so the Prime Minister just hands them a junior position in an agricultural department or something.

I don't think I've read anything other than the original series - and it was Ghost Rider which attracted me to it, along with perhaps Hercules. I don't think it set my world alight, not in the same way the Defenders did.

Some of it felt contrived, I guess. The Defenders concept of a non-team/loose alliance did feel right because they did tend to come together to face supernatural threats more than anything. And just like strange bedfellows in the real world (nations) that come together to combat, say, terrorism, it felt right that loners like Surfer and Hulk would join Strange in battling an opponent.

With The Champions, well, yes, everybody who's left...

You know, the other thing came to mind, too: there seemed to be little logic to the mix of personalities on the team. A former X-Men member, a former spy, a supernatural creature on a motorcycle and a Greek god. Yeah, a mix of personalities can be good, but there seemed to be a lack of logic.

The Avengers had a reason for existing early on - and then I guess they had a continual reason to exist after that. The Defenders did tend to band together to face very similar threats (most of the comics I read featured supernatural opponents). And occasional loners/outcasts coming together felt believable, but there was nothing about the Champions that felt "organic" to me. It did feel like a case of choosing leftovers. 

Sometimes that can work, I guess. Bringing together Flash Gordon, Mandrake the Magician, Lothar and Phantom worked well enough for me in the DEFENDERS OF THE EARTH series, but something about The Champions never felt right.

***

For me, Joe, it depends on the reason, although I take your point.

Whilst it was Loki's troublemaking that brought together the Avengers, it did make sense for them to exist to combat the threats no solo hero could tackle. And as time went on, it would have made sense that the federal government and the likes of S.H.I.E.L.D. would have kept the Avengers going.

It also makes sense that Dr. Strange would form occasional alliances with the outcasts/odd ones of the Marvel Universe when it came time to tackle supernatural threats.

With the Champions, it just felt contrived, in my view. 

I wanted to learn more about them and tracked down a couple of old issues in a second hand comic store in Slough. The art wasn't JB - by now he was hot, although that meant nothing to me, with the period of the X-Men or FF - but I still loved reading about this random group of Avenger-wannabees.

Years later I got hold of the TPB that contains all their stories. It's a hotch potch of tales and a shame that they didn't even split up in their own book (I recall they were wound up in a Spider-Man title); however, I still have a soft spot for them.

Angel was always one of my favorite heroes so it was always cool to see him in action.  Oddly enough it was always Ghost Rider who just felt out of place.  Seeing him in action in daylight at times was weird.  And since I was never a big fan my exposure to Ghost Rider came mainly through The Champions.  

The Champions made The Stilt-Man cool to me. That is no meager feat.