Can "blood" help make a superstar?

[FightOwensFight]

I think the easiest way to put this is that if the match sucked without blood then having blood wouldn't save it, so no, blood isn't needed to make a superstar.

That being said, I do think it can add to the drama and emotion of the match. The one feud during the "PG Era" I always bring up when this topic is brough up (and it seems to get brough up often) is between HHH and Orton when Orton was running around taking out HHH's family and finally kissing Steph after the brutal DDT off the middle rope. When they finally finished that feud it just left me flat. It didn't have the climatic ending I was hoping for (as a huge HHH and Orton fan) and if HHH had left Orton a little bloody at the end I certainly feel it would have helped.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

im not sure i exactly get your question.are you asking that can bleeding ALONE make a superstar???? then the answer is no.for example if you see a 3 minute match on nxt between kaval and riley and they both end up bleeding do you think it will make either of them a superstar??? no i dont think so.

the most frequent example i see people giving is the stone cold vs bret hart match.
yes its true blood helped in making the match memorable but the match is itself one of the greatest ever and the feud is also one of the best ever.so blood was like one of the many ingredients of a great recipe.

so now we come to the question again???? does blood help.sure enough.but only in feuds that warrant it.like say i would not mind seeing blood in one of the upcoming undertaker/kaane matches because the story is there