Does Blood Really Matter In WWE?

[AlreadyKnow]

As others have said, it depends on the match type, the extent of the feud, etc.

I don't really care that they don't juice anymore, but when somebody accidentally gets a cut, and they stop a match to clean them up, it really disrupts the flow of the match. Just look at the Archer/Benjamin match on ECW; Benjamin got a small cut above his eye, and they had a trainer come in and clean it up. What was really annoying is that these two were supposed to hate each other, so why would Archer care if he's injured and wait for him to clean up? And it was a No DQ match as well. It's just crazy the lengths they go to to clean make their product look clean.

 

[Aud]

Blood does matter, in extreme matches. Like the ladder match between Christian and Shelton Benjamin at tlc. I was so pissed when medics actually came out to stop Christian's bleeding in the middle of the match! It messed up the momentum of the match. They both put in so much work in that match and it would have ment so much more if when Christian held up his title he had blood streaming down his face. This would have showed how hard he worked to retain his title.

Blood isn't necessary in all matches but in extreme matches it definitely is.

 

[TKO 3:16]

Blood really is just the icing on the cake for me. After you see a long, hard fought match, you'd expect to see some blood for all the fight. Matches like HITC, cage, chamber, ladder or table..... Any of those would suffice with blood. I mean, its not like we get robbed for our $$ when somebody dosent bleed, we buy PPVS and tune in weekly for the wrestling period. Blading was always something I was iffy with, I can see gettin your head busted open on the"steel" steps or takin a chair or ring bell shot (not like a bell shot happens anymore) but that blading deffinatley had to go if this whole thing was going 2 get real mainstream and kid friendy. But hey,we could see the end of the PG era soon, who knows.

 

[Savion83]

Now I know it's the PG era in the WWE. But come on, the WWE needs to wake up and stop insulting the WWE universes intellenge like that. Even with the kids! Wrestling fans seen wrestlers bleed before the whole PG rating even came along.

And if the WWE is really serious about competing against MMA. Then the Whole PG thing has to fly!

 

[The Doctor]

Personally, I think blood should be used very sparingly. I don't see it as necessary in the slightest, but feel that if used in the right situation it could add either to the story of the feud or match, or to the legacy of the stipulation.

In a deep and intense feud, two wrestlers are supposed to be out to get each other. Last year's Triple H/Randy Orton is a good example of a feud that would have greatly benefited from some good old violence. Orton was supposed to be some kind of depraved maniac who terrorized Triple H's family. This in turn made Trippy very angry, even causing him to break into Orton's home. If they had settled their feud in a hardcore match or even if their feud had featured a spot where Orton had been busted open by the ferocity of Trippy's attacks, I think their disappointing Wrestlemania match would have been more interesting.

Seeing the red stuff makes people think "Man, this has just gotten serious!". If you hang out in the LDs, whenever someone bleeds there are always a lot of posters commenting on the blood. It's all part of maintaining the illusion that the people in the feud really do not like each other. Sure, they could step on the guy's stomach or whatever but having something visible and tangible makes it more real.

As for adding to the legacy of the stipulation, think of the Hell in a Cell. Cole calls it "demonic" and "Barbaric". How did it get such a reputation? Classic bloodbaths like Mankind/Taker taking place in it. If only regular wrestling matches took place in it with only wrestling moves allowed, I doubt HIAC matches would be quite so legendary.

But I don't want to have every match degenerate into a bloodbath. There's something special about blood, and seeing it in every match would make it less special. It would desensitize us. It would make NOT seeing blood something special. And that wouldn't be fun at all, not to mention shorten the careers of the wrestlers.

So, I think blood should be used only when it adds to the match.

 

[Moose70nyc]

Well I for one am a fan of blood in intense feuds. For example the Cena and Orton 80 minute iron man match. The awful wrestlemania match between otron and Triple H. The Legacy and D-X feud at Hell in A Cell. If you notice (intense rivalries), I know some of you may think that Legacy and D-X wasnt really an intense feud, but look what we had in 2009. Outside of Punk and Hardy and Orton and HHH and Orton and Cena that was the fourth best rivalry.

Blood should ONLY be used in Hell in a Cell, iron man, cage, stretcher matches etc etc. Not in ALL of them but add some blood in the match here and there. I dont really miss the blood in matches, but it kind of annoyed me when i went to Hell In A Cell last year, and seen THREE matches in the cell and not one drop of blood. they should have had one match involve blood, and it would have gotten really over with the crowd and fans, and we will look foward to next years PPV. But come on how can you get amped up to see 2, 4, men fight in a 18 foot high cell and not have blood.

But hey i can do without it in 99 pct of matches but seeing it tat once in a rare time would be nice too

****60 Minute Iron Man Match****

 

[Alex]

I think blood should only be used in really intense feuds, similar to Jeff Hardy vs CM Punk, Triple H vs Randy Orton and John Cena vs Randy Orton.

These kinds of matches would have made the bleeding believable because the competitors loathed each other and wanted to make them suffer and since most of these matches are gimmick matches it would be easier for them to make each other bleed

 

[Барбоса]

Blood certainly does have its place in heated rivalries. For example, even though it is the main event of the wrestling year, I would expect the blood ban to be lifted for Wrestlemania, particularly for the Hart/McMahon showdown.

Forgetting the problems with Bret's health and Vince's age, such a personal rivalry both on and off screen almost screams out for someone to be wearing the crimson mask. Seeing blood roll down Vince's face in a similar fashion to Stone Cold at WMXIII as he writhes in pain locked in the Sharpshooter should be one of the memorable moments of this years edition

 

[JBK2008]

This one isn't even close. Blood adds realism to a match and steps up the brutality and hatred for one another in a feud. It's a must and even with the current PG format in the WWE, I think it's going to be necessary down the road to start implementing some blood in one or two of the top feuds once these kids get older. Also as far as the kids go, everything is on t.v Sex, drugs, blood, killing, it's all on and kids will find a way to see it, so Vince should wake up and not stop matches if some blood appears. Blood will sell a match and it will keep the fans interested in a feud when both guys hate eachother so much that blood is shed.

 

[Y-2-Jay]

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.

Uhhhhh HBK vs Chris Jericho fued had blood. At the great american bash 08 and it made me (dont know about you) belive these 2 hate each other that much that they want to spill blood.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Like you said in the original post, it doesn't matter in the long run. Once in a while I do feel blood is necessary (for example, I feel the Orton vs. Cena Iron Man Match probably could of used some blood because it was the ending of a heated,2 year long feud) but it should only be used to elevate a match or storyline.

SIDE NOTE: It does piss me off though when matches are stopped because someone just happened to get busted open (like the Christian vs. Benjamin match, it was a freakin LADDER MATCH and they stopped it because Christian got busted open, thats fucking stupid). I do think the WWE goes a little too far to make sure there is no blood, especially since it's the nature of the beast, once in a while a wrestler will get busted open the hard way, it just happens.

On the flip side, blood for the sake of blood (like your average Abyss or Necro Butcher match) is not necessary, if you need to bleed every match to get over, chances are you don't have much skill or ring psychology (of course there are exceptions but most people who bleed on a regular basis can't work worth shit).

Back to the original point though, if blood can be used to help elevate a storyline, match, or character than blood is more than welcome, but if you just bleed for the sake of bleeding, it not only ends up hurting the person (both physically and from a character standpoint because if you bleed to much, its no longer shocking its expected), it hurts bigger feuds that could be elevated by blood because people are so used to seeing it.

 

[Cookie14]

this one really depends on the match. for example, blood works in elimination chamber matches, but not in singles matchres, just cause they're at a PPV. I think WWE proved how petty they are being with the no blood policy when they stopped the iron man match between Cena and Ortin so they could stich up Cena. His win would have seemed so much more miraculous if he had raised the title, covered in his own blood

WWE does tend to be a bit too predictable with when people are going to bleed though. before they brought in thre no blood policy HHH must have been busted open for at least 50 consecutiv PPV's, but never any other time

 

[JJohns]

In MOST cases, blood is not needed. One of my all time favorite matches was Savage vs Steamboat at WrestleMania III. That match told a great story, and did not have any blood shed in the match. In some cases, yeah, blood does help tell the story a little better. Hogan vs Savage at 'Mania V is an example of that. But nowadays, it just seems like everyone wants blood in every match, or else we're gonna shit all over it.

I think that idea sucks. Does a Hell in a Cell match NEED blood? In my honest opinion, it doesn't. The idea behind Hell in a Cell is that you want to keep the wrestlers in the ring(side area) and anyone that would try to interfere out of that space. The main reason why people were boo hooing the lack of blood is because we became accustomed to seeing that.

ON TOP OF THAT....blood is dangerous. If someone blades, and they cut too deep, they can cause real damage. Even if they don't cut too deep, and the bleeding goes on too long, they can start to feel the effects (See Cena vs Orton, NHB Iron Man match for example) and not be able to function properly at the end. On top of that, there are so many blood-bourne diseases out there, that you can risk a wrestler going from being a great athlete, to having to take medication for the rest of their life. That was a worry in any match that Road Warrior Hawk was in for years, as he had Hepatitis C.

So for me, it doesn't really matter, as I think that not using blood can be both to keep the PG rating as well as for the safety of the wrestlers.

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

The answers I've seen are pretty good. And I know my answer's already been said in all likelihood, but blood in matches should be used in matches that warrant it. Steel Cage matches, Chair matches, TLC matches, etc. Blood adds to the realism of an attack on someone. When you use brass knuckles or a chair on someone, it should draw some blood. It sells the rivalry and makes everything more 'real'.

The route the WWE's taking now simply isn't right. If someone gets busted open the hard way, let them stay busted open. Why fix someone mid match, possibly not even helping the injury out, and ruin the chemistry of the bout? It's foolish to do that and to be honest, it would help the WWE to go back to a more 'realistic' kind of wrestling, with some bloodshed when it warrants it.

 

[Dan E. Inferno]

I voted "no" in the poll because WWE doesn't NEED blood, but I feel it can be useful at times. Some of the best matches of all time did fine without blood, including the 2009 match of the year, and matches will be able to be considered great or classic in the future without blood too. However, while blood isn't needed, there are plently of times when blood can help a situation.

An example of this is my favourite Wrestlemania match ever, Austin vs Hart at WM13. The match would still be considered a classic without Austin's blood, but the image of Stone Cold busted open whilst being in the sharpshooter helped in making the match more memorable in my opinion.

So, at the end of the day, I'd have to say blood doesn't really matter, but it doesn't hurt to see it occasionally. On a side note, I hate the way matches are stopped, like Christian vs Benjamin, when a wrestler is bleeding. That is certainly taking it too far as it can have a negative affect on the match.

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

I voted yes but that only means I think blood should be added in certain matches, for example the Elimination Chamber. I just watched last years PPV and it was no where near as brutal as previous years simply because there was no blood involved. You expect guys to be cut open when they're inside the chamber or in a HIAC/Cage match.

That doesn't mean that every match needs blood to get over, just hardcore matches where they are ending a feud or using weapons. It does add to those type of matches, certainly.

 

[fdogg83097]

Does wrestling need blood? in my opinion yes it does. Does every match need it? NO. think of how things would be different if we never had blood in fueds. Bret Hart winning over Steve Austin due to ref stoppage way before getting locked into the sharpshooter. Now i do understand with the senate race and WWE making movies now you dont want your stars to start looking like Dusty Rhodes's forehead, but the last few times they stopped matches to stop the blood loss it was accidental. That should be allowed. Do baseball or football players get told to go and remove any piece of clothing that might have blood on it? They are family orientated sports. Let it happen and when it is needed let it enhance the product.

 

[hellod245]

It does and it does not. Blood is not important for every match. If wwe is PG then they should not use blood on TV but they can use it on PPV's to tell the story better. For example last years mania main event Orton vs HHH. The match sucked the life out of fans. Fans were standing and going out in between the match. The feud they had, the storyline behind the match was huge but their match actually sucked. If wwe decided to add blood in the match then i would have been different. They made the feud so huge that actual encounter seems like smaller than the feud itself. They could show that both wrestlers trying to tear each other apart. On the other hand they can not use blood in every other match. That would make lesser impact on the fans. They dont need blood in matches like TLC, Ladder match, Tables match or royale rumble match but sure as hell matches like EC and HIAC has their true identity without blood. They looks like ordinary cage match now. WWE should start using blood once or twice after every 4-5 months to make fans believe that wrestlers actually trying to tear each other apart.

 

[AnthonyMango/NoFate007]

I don't mind them saying not to blade, but what I do find annoying as all hell is how they stop the matches now. Christian gets a little gash on his head and we have to waste 5 minutes while they make sure no kiddies see any blood. Then they have to cut the match shorter. The matches are already so fucking short as it is, with all the goddamn repetitive "this is what happened last week even though we've shown you it 20 times this week" shit.