Does Blood Really Matter In WWE?

[Calderownz]

I've noticed that a lot of posters and people in general complain about the PG rating for WWE's programming. They feel it's too safe and too child-oriented. Fair enough. But they also complain that matches can't involve blood.

Now, my question is.. Does that really matter? In my opinion, the best match of the year for 2009 ('Taker Vs. Michaels, WM25) would have actually suffered if blood was involved. A lot of spots might have bee trickier, if one of the guys was partially blind with that blood in their eyes. Obviously, like the moonsault dive off the top into a tombstone could have been harder than it needed to be, considering it's tricky as is.

Some matches might not have suffered. but they also didn't really need them. In my opinion, if the match needs blood to get over, then it was never the match that got over in the first place.

A match like Austin/Hart at WM13 needed the blood. Because it helped tell an intricate portion of the story. But, for the most part, those types of moments in matches are few and far between. I think the blood thing being such an issue for fans is not something of any major importance. Nonetheless....

My questions are.. Is blood important? Do you prefer bloodier matches? Your thoughts?

Discuss.

 

[Wald]

In general no it doesn't. I started watching in the late 80s and you'd never see blood yet I regard that as the WWF's golden age because you had guys like DiBiase, Perfect, Santana, Bret, Rude etc. as a solid undercard to the main eventers like Hogan, Andre, and Warrior with a quality tag division thrown in. That's what the WWE needs, not blood, although I will add that I agree that certain matches are enhanced by it. Hart vs Austin is a good one because the feud had gotten that personal at that stage that the two just wanted to kill each other. It was overused in the Attitude era though, by WCW and ECW as well, and fans became too used to it.

Keep it as a sideshow for maybe a once a year feud ending street fight or Hell in a Cell (I do think not allowing blood makes a gimmick match like Hell in a Cell redundant anyway). For example had Jeff Hardy stuck around (and not been arrested afterwards) then I could easily have seen Punk vs Hardy having a street fight match to end their feud where blood could have been used to enhance the action.

 

[Alex_U]

Yes and No......

I all depends on who is in the match, if you have two outstanding athletes wrestling there hearts out, then of course. I hate to feel like Russo here, but it adds to a match. If it’s just blatant violence (cough... cough CZW) then not so much. I have tried to sit through some of those King of the Death matches, yes that are awesome if they are excited right, but I just do not see the reasoning behind everyone bleeding and....I think I may vomit...... Anyways, for the WWE, of course, they are always trying to one up the competition, and you see blood in TNA. So I guess the long end of the stick is this, do you prefer to see a solid wrestling match that has a clean finish, or do you want a solid wrestling match and let the wrestlers tell the story, and not VINCE.......

 

[AndyUK]

All in all, I'm not that bothered about the blood but it CAN have a big impact on a match. Just think of the iconic image of Austin in the Sharpshooter at Wrestlemania 13. It wouldn't be the same without Austin drenched in blood.

I think the main problem has been how overused it has been over the years. Blood in a match used to be a major thing but during the Attitude Era, it seemingly started happening on a weekly basis and like one of the posters said above, it lost it's impact.

I wouldn't have banned it completely because I do think it can be useful but it should have only be used sparingly anyway.

 

[classicviolence]

Blood is not needed in pro wrestling, but when used correctly it can dramatically increase the overall importance of a match.

Bret v Austin WM13 and Brock v Taker NM02 are prime examples of this as it showed how tough Austin and Taker were and fans rallied behind them.

 

[emerald phoenix]

it depends on the match, you dont need blood to have a good match...but certain matchs need to to just be realistic.... no dq matchs would make sense to have blood, cage matchs r forseable bc u can bust ur head open on cage, weapon matchs ect ect.......so yes n no it depends on match.....but the no blood thing at all is abit redic, bc u never know what could happen on accident and stopping the match mid match...which i heard has happened twice on live tv, comes off stupid.....

 

[Kenny Powers]

Blood isn't needed in every match, but if it happens it makes the match more dramatic and exciting. WWE should be able to use it for special events in intense rivalries like they did with Austin and Bret Hart. It takes away more from a match that is a steel cage or a Hell in a Cell without blood. It also looks ridiculous when a doctor runs to ringside and stitches up a wrestler before the match even starts.

It amazes me that WWE won't stop a match when someone is injured or dieing in the ring, but they will stop a match for a little blood on a PPV?

 

[GenMe]

It all depends,Yes and NO


Yes because in gimmick matches like hell in a cell,Cage match,Elimination Chamber,Extreme match:in those matches you need to go all out basically anything goes.That's what those matches were made for to go all out,And sometimes when i see blood in the match i get more into it i dont know why.But there has been sometimes on tv or in a PPV that they stop the match cause of blood come on you just kill the fun or it.

No because WWE has some matches that they really dont need blood in them.Pretty much regular single matches or tag team matches.And sometimes those matches are great.So when it comes to regular i say no blood,Cause we dont need it

 

[triplex13]

I think its not of great importance but it is an issue when they have to stop a match and make up some lame excuse and make out its a law in that specific state, like in christian and shelton benjamins ladder match at tlc, it just ruined the match for me and my mates.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Does blood matter overall in the WWE? No, not really. Like any other gimmick, blood does have its place and can add to the overall drama of some types of matches. In my opinion, street fights and steel cage matches need blood. Street fights have the whole no holds barred thing going on and, while not really different from a no DQ match, the phrase street fight always conjures up images of brutality and violence that makes it distinct. In real life, if you watch a street fight and somebody isn't bloodied up, then you feel kind of cheated. A street fight without blood is like Rice Krispies without milk.

As for a cage match, blood isn't as necessary in my view but it's become a traditional part of a cage match. Once again, a cage match has always been built up as being more violent than your standard match. The cage itself is a weapon and has often produced blood for dramatic effect.

In these two matches, blood makes them better in my view. For just about every other match, there's no need. When blood is used too often then, like any other gimmick, it loses its novelty.

 

[Jonnie Walker]

Yes and no. In a regular match that is just a filler for the show card, then no. But if it's personal or a gimmick match, then without a doubt. If there isn't blood in a match that is supposed to be brutal, then is it really brutal? A HIAC without blood makes it less hardcore, but so does 3 in one night. If I don't see any blood in the elimination chamber, I'll be pissed because that douche on ECW was bleeding after he got kicked by Yoshi Tatsu in a match that serves not much of a purpose, instead of a "brutal" match in "satan's structure". Are they referring to Bischoff as Satan?

 

[Shazam!]

There should be blood where it is appropriate. If someone gets his head knocked against a steel cage, gets hit with a fucking stick, and does not bleed, that takes away the realism and in that case blood is a necessity. Other than that, no, it really doesn't matter.

may i add that i'm not a big fan of stopping a match because a wrestler is bleeding. it's fucking stupid and unnecessary and ruins the flow.

 

[Rated_R_Superstar2010]

no blood does not matter but when they stop in the middle of the match to keep a guy frol bleeding its pathetic. its wrestling. its supposed to be about beating the shit out of eachother and if some1 bleeds so be it. do i want wrestlers to cut themselves for my entertainment, no. do i want a match to continue even if some1 is bleading, yes.

 

[Poɘt]

I personally wish all wrestlers would stop intentionally making themselves bleed. I've never been a fan of the blood and don't feel it adds anything to a match that exceptional selling can't.

Now if it happens naturally, then I'm ok with that, because that helps lend realism to the match experience. But when they do it on purpose, it really loses it's effect that blood is something to be amazed by because someone bleeds all the time now.

 

[Dman164]

There are only two matches that I really thought should have had blood in them, throughout 2009 and that was the "I Quit" match between Randy Orton and Cena. and maybe the Extreme Rules match at WM between the Hardy's otherwise iv'e thought the year has gone by fairly well without the blood. I think people just need something to complain about and that is one of the easiest things to complain about.

 

[codebreaker212p]

I dont have an issue with there being less blood in WWE. However what pisses me off about it is if someone does get busted open accidently, WWE has a fucking doctor run in the ring and clean up the blood esentially stopping the good feel to a match. Vince knows whether he wants to admit it or not that its stupid as well. The only reason he is going along with this is because his dumbass wife is running for senate and is in the Board of education for another year. I just pray to God Linda loses the senate race, and its like a punch in the balls to Vince to wake the hell up

 

[RKOChamp]

Blood is not necessary in wrestling. It is only a tool to help add to the dramatic effect in the match. Granted it would be nice to see the occasional blood without having to stop the match to clean up, but that doesnt mean blood should be used at every PPV. It probably should be used in the matches that WWE likes to call the more brutal types of matches, but not everyone of them HAS to have blood.

 

[Tougie]

Voted yes, for the simple fact that blood truely does add to the match. Its not lie I want to see a bloodbath in every match, but hardcore style, ladder, cage any type of those specialty matches that you would think would have blood or that have had it before should have blood. I mean seriously the ladder match at TLC between Christian and Shelton Benjamin, Christian bleeds and they stop the match I mean I can understand wanted to be kid friendly, but I guess JR saying before matches "This match may not be appropriate for all members of the family." wasent enough.

 

[Calderownz]

There should be blood where it is appropriate. If someone gets his head knocked against a steel cage, gets hit with a fucking stick, and does not bleed, that takes away the realism and in that case blood is a necessity. Other than that, no, it really doesn't matter.

may i add that i'm not a big fan of stopping a match because a wrestler is bleeding. it's fucking stupid and unnecessary and ruins the flow.

Unless it's a First Blood Match, that's rarely ever happened. However, the reason it DOES make sense is because it's SUPPOSED to stop the flow of the match. In a reality based sense, the flow of the match would be that he's getting more and more busted open. In boxing that WOULD stop the fight. It also helps the storyline continue so that another match can take place, to create closure.

I remember during a Lex Luger match against Ric Flair, he was about to win, had him in the Torture Rack and it was stopped in favor of Ric Flair because of excessive blood loss. That creates the idea that closure is needed, a fan wants the rematch to determine the better man.

Regardless, it does have it's place. What I'm saying is, I can bash my head in a change link fence right now, and it wouldn't create blood. Into a steel guard rail? It would. So, a time and a place for everything. A match doesn't NEED it, however.

 

[johnseamann]

I don't think it's really necessary. It makes it more realistic, even cooler. Maybe in steel cage mathces, HIAC matches, EC's and basically any match when the wrestlers' head can be hit by steel it would certainly increase the realism, but not in matches such as HBK, vs. Undertaker at WM25.

Now, something completely different is what they are doing in the PG era whenever blood appears. Stopping the match is just awful. The few times it has happened it has made brutal matches come to terrible momentum-killer haults , and I think they shouldn't be so restrictive regarding blood. To sum it up, maybe they shouldn't use blading, but not censor it whenever it appears legitimately.

 

[emerald phoenix]

I personally wish all wrestlers would stop intentionally making themselves bleed. I've never been a fan of the blood and don't feel it adds anything to a match that exceptional selling can't.

Now if it happens naturally, then I'm ok with that, because that helps lend realism to the match experience. But when they do it on purpose, it really loses it's effect that blood is something to be amazed by because someone bleeds all the time now.

logically getting hit over the head with a chair or an object multiple times would cause someone to bleed in real life, same if somene was rammed into a post(this happened in rvd vs orton a few years ago, orton messed up the spot and legit hit his head on the post, the match had to be short finished due to the severity of randys cut)....blood isnt needed, but they should use it in a logical sense if the blood flow isnt natural.

stopping/pausing a match bc of blood is also dumb unless their is fear that the wrestlers cut is deep enough to lose that amount of blood that itd be dangerous, or will run into his eyes(causes blindness)

 

[rayisawesomeness]

Absolutely not. Watch Chris Jericho vs. Rey Mysterio or Chris Jericho vs. Shawn Michaels and you'll agree. The only reason you people complain about this is because it's part of the PG movement. If the WWE never went PG and there was no blood, no one would have said anything.

 

[Greenlight13]

I don't think it's needed and blading can stop, but I also don't like that they stop matches to clean them up they get busted the hard way. The WWE can never seriously be considered child friendly surely? Children believe it's real, they don't know the superstars learn how to fall and protect each other. They don't know most of the bitter enemies are great friends. They think that Batista genuinely wants to take Rey Mysterio or John Cena's lives. Now I'm not saying that means they can go out and do barb wire and have naked women on, but I think if a guy gets cut open performing what is a fundamentally violent art form then they should let it be what it is. I mean if they're clearly in some medical trouble, by all means go help them, but a cut that they can handle, leave.

Something like Hell in a Cell somewhat calls for it. They either have to bleed or they have to take a fall, because otherwise why bother with it? Hell in a Cell is meant to be THE match that settles things. It's meant to be reserved for pure hatred. If all they're doing is putting a roof on a cage then it's pointless to me. I'm not asking anyone to emulate Mick Foley, I'm not asking for a giant Muta style blade job, but give me something.

Besides that, no, I don't think it's needed. They're cutting down on large blows to the head because it's medically safe and better for business long-term, and I can live with that. I like suplexes and slams and counter wrestling and submissions more than I like sick weapon spots.

 

[Midnite Express 2009]

All I can say about the "PG Era" is that when you tune into WWE 24/7 NO MATTER WHAT they show pretty much they give the veiwer warning thing. Now, as far as blood in wrestling, I grew up in a time where wrestlers bladed themselves. I thought it was cool. I think they should do it now, but sparingly. Like the Elimination Chamber, a Cage Match, will more than likely have NO blood whatsoever. realistic to think that being thrown into a cage will NOT result in a cut? Nope. But then again, that's the PG Era for you.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Blood can most certainly be used as a tool for story-telling purposes, but it should be used in extreme situations. It shouldn't be used as much as Flair used it every time he decided to punch himself in the face.

The Batista/Mysterio feud would have been a good place to use blood.

On the other hand, I think wrestlers are perfectly capable of working the match and telling a story just fine without blood. Chris Jericho and Randy Orton do it all the time.