Does Being PG Mean Less Violence? You Bet Your Sweet Ass Not!

[Tenta]

Look, I've heard plenty of people say that one of the faults of the PG Era is that it can't be violent. That the WWE needs weapons to be violent, and that without these weapons, it looks really kind of fake. Of course, not that swinging a chair at someone, and them holding their hands to block the attack is fake, but I get the overall point. But is that true? Can a match be violent, without having to use weapons?

I just re-watched one of my favorite matches, which may be the most brutal in the career of a guy who's had some pretty brutal matches. Guys name is Mick Foley. And his match against Vader in WCW on Saturday Night involved no weapons, no chairs, no tables, and yet still managed to be more violent than any other match I've ever seen him perform in. And mind you, Mick Foley has a style that looks like it hurts, but many people have attested that his offense is incredibly light. Bret Hart, The New Age Outlaws, Edge, all have gone on record in praising Foley for his unstiff attacks, yet making it look so realistic.

Vader... Eh, not so much. But my point is, if the wrestlers make the attacks look crisp enough, then the WWE doesn't need weapons at all. Unfortunately, so many people bitch about the lack of weapons, and how "less" violent the WWE has gotten, when in reality, there are plenty of people that work matches that look stiff, yet don't hurt much. The Undertaker, Evan Bourne, Chris Jericho, are all cases of men who work "stiff" styles, that don't seem to hurt that much. And yet, I hear people criticize the WWE for the lack of "realistic" attacks on the program.

My questions are simple:

1. Does the WWE get a stigma that, because it is PG, it's less violent?

2. Does a match need weapons to be violent?

3. If you feel the WWE is less violent, why do you feel this way?

 

[Ferbian]

1. Does the WWE get a stigma that, because it is PG, it's less violent?

I would assume so. WWE does get a lot of hits for it's lack of blood, lack of hardcore wrestling outside of special pay per view matches. So I would guess that WWE does indeed get a stigma for being less violent.

And I think it's a shame. Because WWE doesn't need violence to be great. There's enough "violence" in the nature of wrestling as wrestling is. There's no need for people to sit there hungering for someone to start bleeding. Hungering for someone to break something.

I heard someone on here say that they heard a fan telling Randy Orton when he wrestled Kofi Kingston "YEAH RANDY KILL HIM! END HIS LIFE!". That shows you get way too invested in this whole thing. And it's a shame. I think people need to realize that WWE doing PG stuff. Cleaning up their talent. Not allowing chair shots. Not allowing blood -Allows for a better environment for the wrestler. Allows for their careers to be extended. And most importantly - It kills the potential of Chris Benoit 2.

2. Does a match need weapons to be violent?

Absolutely not. For those who remembers - Chris Jericho & Ric Flair. Chris made it look violent way before the introduction of the television screen. It's all a matter of throwing against material. There's no need to involve a chair. A ladder or anything down that lane.

There's many examples of matches that can look violent without the use of weapons. I believe that the I Quit match between John Cena and Batista did it just fine before the introduction of the car. I don't recall anything else being used.

3. If you feel the WWE is less violent, why do you feel this way?

WWE isn't necessarily less violent. There might be a decrease in hardcore wrestling. But I don't think there's any need to consider it less violent. Wrestling is a "violent" sport by nature in the definition that it's people "fighting". I think it's all about how the match is booked. As well as to how far you let the feud go on.

I would say this weeks Smackdown is a prime example of violence without weapons or blood. Jack Swagger attacking Rey Mysterios "injured" ankle.

 

[Hawkeye]

In my opinion,I think it's just the label that messes with people.Saying it's PG immediately makes me think it's REALLY gonna look fake,but that's not the case at all.The PG label was obtained by eliminating tawdry storylines that made wrestling look like a trashy soap opera anyway.The label actually pumped up the product,because now they have to be more creative with storylines as to keep the audience interested,but still maintain interest with a still prevalent older audience.

1.I honestly do believe that they picked up a stigma that the product is less violent than before,which is not the case.Just last night Jack Swagger drag Rey Mysterio helplessly through the backstage area attempting to seperate his ankle.You won't see that on most other PG shows,but onlookers who won't invest the time in looking for themselves will just believe WWE has become "Kidz Place" because of a PG label.

2.If you're not counting using one's environment,I.E steel steps,ring ropes then no.You can use things around the arena like barricades and such to make a beating look real.The Miz showed us just how easy it can be last monday when he ran through R-Truth(if you ignore the strike from the mic)

3.I don't feel that the WWE has become less violent in any way,shape,or form.It's a safer work environment for the wrestlers,which I'm all for so blading begone,head shots be damned, and on with athletically superior strikes and grappling.

 

[TSG]

I only think that the WWE is less violent in the PG era in matches that are meant to be violent. Matches that are just regular wrestling matches suffer in no way. But I cann attest that most Extreme Rule/Hardcore matches I've seen suck anymore. The one on ECW earlier this year between Vanch Archer/Shelton benjamin was horrible. It was a glorified No DQ match, with the only I remember was use of a singapore cane, and I only remember that because it is taking the place of chairs as the most used weapon these days. The Triple Threat Hardcore match at Extreme Rules 2009 was horrible. All I saw was trash cans and canes. That is boring. Get a little hardcore, vary it up a little. That match was boring itself. Which brings me to Extreme Rules, the PPV. The point in it? Appearently Gauntlet Matches, Fatal Four-Ways, and if you lose you get shaved are now extrem stipulations. No there not. If those are extreme stipulations, than Last man Standing is now a deathmatch, for all intents and purposes.

Lack of blood hurts, also. And before you get on me for saying that wrestling doesn't need blood, sometimes it does. You can't tell me that a violent, fued-finishing Hell in a Cell match wouldn't be furthered by blood. It can survive without it, yes, but for the most part it would seem more violent and brutal with blood, therefore furthering the match. There are examples of matches that could be furthered by blood that weren't since the stgart of PG, but I'm too lazy to look them up. Stopping a match because someone is busted open hardway has got to be the stupidest thing ever in my opinion. Kids have seen blood before, and it ain't gonna hurt them to see it again. Most of the cuts are about the size of one on a kid's knee, and it hurts the flow of a match to stop it and fix a cut. It hurt the flow at TLC, for example, in the ECW Title ladder match.
Once again, I am not saying that every match needs blood, but every now and then a match can be furthered by it.

WWE can be violent in regular matches with PG, but the matches that are supposed to be more violent (Extreme Rules, HIAC) are hurt, and they might as well not be held at all if they are going to be toned down.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

1. Does the WWE get a stigma that, because it is PG, it's less violent?

To an un-educated fan, yes it does. When these fans hear about the PG-Era, they imagine that the WWE is going to become like Blue's Clues. No name-calling, shouting, violence, etc. However, a PG rating does allow a lot of violence. It does allow weapons, and the use of some cursing. It allows for edgy storylines that almost break PG regulations, and we're seeing it with Nexus, they are able to attack any superstar at any time they want, and demolish things. Believe it or not, this is in-fact, PG.

2. Does a match need weapons to be violent?

In a way, yes it does. If it doesnt have weapons, how is it supposed to be violent? If you think back to every violent match you've seen, how many of them didnt use weapons? Probably not many. That's because the use of weapons gives fans a state of mind that tells them outside props are allowed, and if their from outside, then it will certainly make the match different, and more fun to watch. However, like your example Tenta, it doesnt always need weapons.

3. If you feel the WWE is less violent, why do you feel this way?

It's less violent than the Attitude Era, yes. But this version of the WWE is no different than what we've been seeing since 2005.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

1. Does the WWE get a stigma that, because it is PG, it's less violent?

I think that Stinger said it best by saying that the WWE catches a lot of hell from un-educated fans. If you sit down and watch WWE matches, you'll see that most of them every bit as violent as most other wrestling matches you'll see in any other wrestling company. To listen to the complaints of some, you'd almost think that every wrestling match is supposed to be something of a bloodbath. Hardcore matches have become few and far between in the WWE for several reasons. The most obvious reason is that the WWE has taken more of an interest in the health and welfare of its wrestlers. The Benoit Tragedy has had a bit effect on the WWE, particularly in the eyes of many, because the WWE is instantly what most people in America think of when they think of pro wrestling. The WWE is the biggest and most visual wrestling company in the world, which means it's always been the easiest and most convenient target for critics both in and out of wrestling. Many WWE wrestlers are on the road working 250-300 days out of the year and that equals a lot of wear and tear on the body. Another reason is that hardcore wrestling is a novelty that wears off quickly among lots of fans, me included. I believe that Shohei Baba coined the term "garbage wrestling" to describe hardcore wrestling and, to some degree, I agree with that assessment. I enjoy watching hardcore matches every once in a while, but they're not necessary at all for my enjoyment of wrestling. But, because of the PG label, some fans do label the WWE as applying only to kids. It's an argument that critics of the WWE like to toss out and it's really become a weak one in my view.

2. Does a match need weapons to be violent?

Not at all. There are numerous examples of violent looking wrestling matches that don't involve the use of weapons. Like hardcore matches in and of themselves, weapons are novelties that can work when used every once in a while and in the right setting. They can add to a match, but they're not essential.

3. If you feel the WWE is less violent, why do you feel this way?

I think that the WWE is less violent in the sense that they've restricted the use of blood and have banned chairshots to the head. However, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing at all, especially the latter. I do think that the use of blood can potentially be useful in the course of some matches, but I suppose it can also be dangerous as well. If blood manages to trickle into your eyes, it can potentially cause permanent damage. Chairshots to the head are unnecessary and I'm glad the WWE banned them. I've read some fans criticizing it but, to me, it shows just how ignorant they really are. A metal folding chair probably weighs somewhere in the vicinity of 3-5 pounds. Now, just think of the potential damage that might do to someone's skill being swung by someone with arms as large as the average man's legs at speeds of 20-25 miles per hour. All it takes is the right amount of pressure hitting at just the right angle to turn someone into someone that needs watering for the rest of their life or even kill them potentially. It only takes about 80 pounds of pressure per square inch to fracture the human skull at its strongest points. Overall, I don't think you can post that you care about the health and well being of wrestlers while, simultaneously, criticize wrestling companies for not placing them in matches that amount to little more than cock fights.

 

[Mr_billy]

1. I think it is getting a bad stigma, I mean it is not less violent, just less blading and weapons, and why would anyone want to disfigure their fore heads, The Dudleys foreheads look like waffles.
2. No weapons do not make violence, the mot violent thing I've seen anywhere is a guy stomping a guys leg causing a compound fracture, so real fighting does not need weapons to be more violent. Did nobody watch smack down on Friday, I had a Holy Shit moment watching Jack Swagger swing Rey around like a ragdoll while maintaining an ankle lock, any weapons involved. And Kane is scary weapons or not.

 

[Y-2-Jay]

I guess i missed the fact the blood is not PG. Blood is 100% PG and is allowed the reason why its banned is because WWE wants to ban the Blood, its not because of the rating it's WWE's decsion which is the same with chairshots to the head they was banned for being dangerous not because they was not PG. WWE could be a hell of a lot more violent but they chose not too. So all i can say is PG = possible violence.

 

[Rated_R_Edgehead]

1. Does the WWE get a stigma that, because it is PG, it's less violent?

2. Does a match need weapons to be violent?

3. If you feel the WWE is less violent, why do you feel this way?

1. I don't think that the Wwe is less violent at the moment, just because there's no violence in the matches doesn't mean that there can't be violence anywhere else, look at nexus. Those guys appear to be giving the Wwe the violence that it needs in the form of brutally attacking superstars/legends/crew members for no reason, and it gets more exciting each and every week cause you want to tune in to see what nexus do next. Even in this pg era it's still quite violent and I approve.

2. I don't think match need weapons to be violent, there have been many amazing matches that have been violent and have not needed weapons, it just needs some good story telling I say.

However I want to know, would you include matches like Steel cage matches or Elimination Chamber or such, cause they aren't weapons per say but when used against an opponent can have rather violent effects, so my question is; Would we include Steel cages and the elimination chamber cage as weapons?

I have decided to leave question 3 out, as although I would have answered it, I feel as though I already have in the first question.

 

[FightOwensFight]

1.) Yes, they do have that stigma, but, it is currently unwarranted. The past couple years were definitely more kid-centric but anyone watching recently can't complain for a lack of violence. The Nexus angle, McIntyre against Hardy, Kane going bonkers, the recent uber-aggressive Swagger taking out Big Show and destroying Mysterio.

2.) No, a match doesn't need weapons to be violent. Aggressive attitude and intelligently using the environment around them lets the wrestlers have the aura of violence. Look at the examples I mention above. No weapons used in any of those (other than the "Tie Incident") and all would qualify as sufficiently violent to all but the most blood-thirsty fan.

3.) See 1 & 2.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

In terms of the Foley/Vader match, I'm pretty sure we've seen the same one (Vader beats the hell out of him, Jesse Ventura is calling the match, etc.). Vader was a stiff bastard, and he beat Foley like that on more than one occasion. But would Vince and company stand for that kind of a beating on tv today?

Vader went above and beyond. I have watched a lot of matches in my life, and I have never watched a wrestler be so stiff with another. Vader was actually punching Foley. During the Attitude Era, I would say Vince would have had zero problem with that. I am basing that on the fact that Vince did nothing to The Rock after he beat Foley half to death with a steel chair at the Royal Rumble in 1999. The WWE is a different place today. If that same incident were to have taken place on Raw last week, I have a feeling Vader would be gone, fired. Not only is Vince more concerned about his wrestlers today than WCW was in the early 90's, but he wouldn't want his younger audience to see that. That match went far beyond kayfabe violence.

1. Does the WWE get a stigma that, because it is PG, it's less violent?

Among the IWC, yes. And I agree it's a less violent show. No chair shots to the head. No realistic choking. No blood. But, I don't think having those kinds of rules is a bad thing. I think it's less violent than it was ten years ago, but I don't really mind that. Vince needs to protect his wrestlers, and (for lack of a better word) pander to his younger, more family-friendly audience.

The PG rating really has nothing to do with it. WWE is choosing to be less violent. I think they can get away with a lot more than they, do even with the PG rating. WWE is trying to "improve" their image. I'm not sure when this whole "improving our image" process started. Whether it was before or after the Benoit tragedy, I don't know, but I know that had something to do with it.

2. Does a match need weapons to be violent?

No. The use of weapons is entertaining, but at the end of the day, not needed. This is professional wrestling. The Vader/Foley match is a great example, and I'm glad you brought it up. Having no weapons in that match shows a match doesn't need weapons to be violent. Randy Orton punts people in the head, another great example of being overly violent without weapons. But, if people want weapons, the only one to blame for that is the WWE itself.

The WWE went above and beyond, in terms of violence, throughout the entire Attitude Era. I loved it, I thought it was great. But was it necessary? No, it wasn't. They gave us those above-and-beyond acts of violence, in order to appeal to a more adult crowd. It worked. The blame for people still wanting weapons sits in the lap of the WWE, not the fans.

3. If you feel the WWE is less violent, why do you feel this way?

The WWE today is more about pure wrestling. Whether it be mat wrestling, high-flying offense, whatever, it's more pure. There is still brawling, but not nearly as much as before. Matches stay in the ring more now than they did 10 years ago. Without brawling and weapons, there is no way it cannot be less violent. Is it still violent? Absolutely. Wrestling is a violent sport. The objective is to throw your opponent around and beat the hell out of him until he can no longer compete. That's the objective. But yes, I feel it is far less violent today that it was, say, ten years ago.