Does blood REALLY matter?

[Lee]

OMGZ DA PG ERA SUX CZ DER IS NOOOO BLUD!!!1! FAILZ

So we all want blood, blood makes us happy, are we vampires?

Seriously though think about it, you're wanting a guy to bleed for YOUR enjoyment, think about it.

Now think about the great moments where blood was gushed in WWE, you've got Flair, Austin, Foley, HBK. Those four spring to mind immediately, but as a whole, it's not been used that much. Take off those rose tinted glasses and look at a place that uses blood regularly....TNA.

When you see blood in TNA, what do you think? Do you think OMGZ HES BLEEDING or do you go, he's bleeding and not selling, this is shit. Exactly.

However this is not a lets bash TNA thread, so back on topic, I for one don't mind that there's no blood on WWE. I remember reading an interview with Big Show saying the reason they don't do it is because not many people want to see it anymore, not because of the PG rating. Wrestling has moved on from the Attitude era and WWE for sure can have matches that don't need blood. You want blood? Go to the butchers man.

What do you guys think, should we have blood in WWE or not?

 

[HBK-aholic]

It actually makes no difference to me at all. If I wasn't on a wrestling forum I probably wouldn't have noticed. Using blood can work in certain situations, but in general it's just not needed and definitely does not make a big difference to the product as the idiots would like us to think. Why someone would actively hate the WWE simply due to not using some red liquid is really just beyond me. Get over it idiots.

 

[klunderbunker]

Yes, but only in moderation. It can make a match so much better but at times it can hurt things a lot as well. For example I don't think this needs any explanation:

That's a great example of what blood can do for a match. That's one of the most iconic images in wrestling history and defines Austin's character and the match itself. At other tiems there is bleeding that does nothing at all for a match. Cena and Orton was a match where blood could have helped things out a bit. In the Cell it offers a great dynamic to the match that fits perfectly. If you're in hell, it likely means a lot of violence and therefore blood loss. It can work if done right, but it can so easily be overdone that it's a very fine line.

 

[X]

Blood should definitely be a part of wrestling, it's only logical. When a guy is supposed to be hurt, odds are he's going to be bleeding. It makes the match more realistic in most cases, maybe not from a chair shot or something but in a cage match or say Foley with his barbed wire bat, blood needs to be shed, or you're just teasing us and not delivering. Some people might think it's sick that we might enjoy watching people bleed. Why? Not much different from watching a horror movie, is it? It's not like these guys are actually hurting themselves, all they're doing is scarring their forehead. If they think that's worth it, shit I say go for it. There are few more effective images in pro wrestling than of the babyface finally overcoming his longtime enemy, wearing the crimson mask and proudly raising the title in triumph.

Blood shouldn't be used too often though, which TNA does. Save your bloody matches for a big blowoff of a feud or an entertaining gimmick match for the fans, don't just spill it every time you've got someone willing to blade out there. If they just kept it to moderation, I'd be satisfied. But having no blood whatsoever, that is bullshit. It's fucking wrestling, these people are supposed to be selling the image of people BEATING THE SHIT out of each other, there's no reason that someone couldn't have bled at the HIAC PPV this weekend. You'd imagine hell to be a bloody thing, eh?

To answer you question though Lee, yes, I am in fact a vampire.

 

[jmt225]

Blood can absolutely make a match.

The perfect example of this is Eddie Guerrero vs. JBL at Judgment Day 2005. Now, in this match we're all expecting it to be shit, and you know what? For the most of it... it was. But then comes JBL's BRUTAL chair shot to Eddie, which leaves him in a bloody pulp. That automatically makes the match good in everyone's eyes, because it simply leaves us with a lasting memory. Without that blood leaking from Eddie's head, the match and feud is a huge waste of time and everyone goes home disappointed. But with it.... man, what a FUN match. Also, the very next year at Judgment Day, Cena would bleed his ass off in a match against JBL, and again... it completely made that match. Those two matches are BY FAR the greatest matches in JBL's career, and blood is definitely the reason why, in my opinion.

I would also argue that HBK vs. The Undertaker in the HITC wouldn't have been as good as it was without HBK bleeding. Same case for Austin vs. Bret at Wrestlemania 13. Austin screaming while in the Sharpshooter is one of the greatest images in WWE's history, and it's simply because of the blooding leaking from his head. Without that blood, the moment isn't really that special.

Blood tells a story, man, and just adds so much to a match. When the hero is bleeding, and he/she makes a comebacks... man it gets you into the match that much more. It makes you completely forget what you're watching is scripted and "not real".

So, yes... I would like to have blood in WWE. Not often, but enough times in different situations that leave us with a classic moment from a match. We don't get that often from WWE today, and if come the 30 minute mark in the Iron Man match at Bragging Rights or whatever it's called, Cena gets cut wide open on his head, but he still puts up a fight for the rest of the match, and even pulls off the victory... well, shit, that makes the win mean that much more and makes the match that much more epic.

 

[RatedY2J93]

blood is a key thing to wrestling. I think it shouldn't be used regularly but i think there is a time to use blood and i think that is in hell in a cell and steel cage matchs and ovs barbed wire that kind of thing but ya blood is a part of wrestling honestly i dont care if its there or not i just sit and enjoy the wrestling i could care less if they bleed or not just with blood it makes tougher matchs like i mentioned above more believable and a bit more entertaining

 

[burnout4200]

Also when it comes to HIAC everyone "wanting blood" is a symbolism for wanting at least the possibility of a big bump. Knowing there's no chance of seeing blood or a big bump ruins the idea of Hell In A Cell. We've been spoiled in the past. HIAC meant something and now it's watered down.

 

[TLC]

I do believe their should be blood in WWE, but only used as appropriate times, to make the match look devastating and if the victor wins and is covered in blood shows how badly he wanted to win the match.

One of my favourite matches of all time was made great by the fact that their was blood in it. The match im speaking of is the Team Austin Vs Team Bishoff at Suvivor Series 2003, where Shawn Michaels got busted open and was left against 3 of team bishoff, he managed to out last 2 and almost beat Orton, the reason why we was so shocked of him making it that far was the fact he was pissing out with blood but he carried on and almost did the impossible.

So yes at times i believe it is nescessary.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

If a match needs blood then it mustn't be that fabulous to begin with. Undertaker & Shawn Michaels showed how good a match you can have without blood, Extreme Rules and Orton/Triple H in the build up to WrestleMania showed how extreme you can go within the confines of a PG rated WWE.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest. TNA was supposed to be an alternative to WWE. But they're tried to emulate them for years now. The fact that WWE doesn't have blood or swearing makes them the alternative now. It's WWE who's doing something different to other promotions.

 

[Legend_Killer]

Thats what I think to I don't want that someone cuts himself for my enjoyment I mena ask one of you friends to cut himself so that you could laught I think he would slap you directly in the face by the way Bret Hart said he is glad that there is no blood in WWE because he hated to make himself bleed

 

[Motor City Mayhem]

Blood is not to be used regularly but it cuts down on what wrestler can and can not do in matches. Think about it, there a 6weapons that get used:

1. Chair- All the time
2. Sledge Hammer- Triple H
3. Ladder- Matches
4. Tables- Matches
5. Singapore Cane- Matches but has been brought out
6. The Titles.

Why are their only 6 weapons? Because is not realistic to see Triple H get hit with a fire extinguisher in the head and no blood.

What I'm saying is is that blood is not needed but it helps the creativity a little, look at Hell In A Cell, the writers were going nuts trying to figure out what to do because you had a limit of 2-3 weapons and not only that but you couldn't really put someones face or smash there face into the Cell because no ones gonna think you wont bleed.

 

[xBANEx]

Well.. until WWE has another first blood match then.. then no, blood doesn't matter at all. This is another one of those things that I don't even notice until people bring it up.

I mean.. yeah.. if bleeding happened every now and then I wouldn't really but mind but I don't feel the bleeding makes or breaks the product.

 

[Chill]

By in large, I don't mind that WWE has cut down on blood use because to me you can still have a good match without it. However, in my opinion the problem of no blood arises in gimmick matches where people more typically expect to see the wrestlers bleed and in these type of matches I think blood can help legitimize the bout. That's not to say the performers need to bleed every time they compete in a gimmick match but if it were to happen every so often, I think that would be acceptable. Personally I think that in a standard wrestling match blood is not necessary because the wrestlers should be able to rely on their selling in order to convey that they are in pain. Then again, even in a typical match, they get 'punched' all the time yet there is no blood...is that believable? No, not really but then again I think that's were people just need to suspend their disbelief and accept it for what it is. Overall, a lack of blood isn't going to ruin the product.

 

[TimeToPlayTheGame09]

Many say they don't mind if there are blood, but blood brings that extra excitement and anticipation. I do agree with the others it shouldn't be used excessively. I think HIAC could have used blood in the dx vs legacy match. They had the strongest feud. Blood can be used to end a feud. Once a feud is taken to the step where one of the opponents is bleeding it's time to end it. In the upcoming Iron man match with Cena and Orton, with the WWE portraying it as the last match for them two, if someone was to get busted open during the match it would top off the feud. Blood doesn't have to be shown on TV, but if you pay $40 for a ppv it would be nice to see a little blood action. I'm patiently waiting to see if the WWE ever incorporates blood again. If they don't then they need another angle to step their game up.

 

[Rated_R_Superstar2010]

not so much that i want blood i just want more extreme matches. i mean come on HIAC was nothing like it used to be. NOTHING. it was barely used in the first match and there werent any big bumbs. they didnt even use any chairs or tables. it was just a steel cage match with out the exciting ending. hell whens the last time you saw some1 go through a table???

 

[JBK2008]

Blood brings out the brutality in a match and in a feud and without it, a feud can never reach it's maximum limit of pain. The punishment a superstar takes is also more realistic when blood is involved. I think it should be used even with the pg rating.

 

[Dre Guevara]

all I can say about the matter is that it defeats the purpose of having a cage match if there's no blood involved.

 

[KKarvox]

Honestly, it's nothing that completly diminishes wrestling to a major extent, and like an above poster said, some promotions like TNA use it too much, but blood used sparingly, really brings out a taste of realism, and can suspend your disbelief. Every one knows that matches are staged, but when you see someone bleed, it lets you believe that it's all real, and it draws you in. It really invokes emotion in the viewer, and makes you say "damn", or "oh my god", and allows a connection to be made. It also makes gimmick matches work. It's what turns a glorified fence into a demonic structure, and makes a sledgehammer shot make you cringe. Now obviously there are some wrestlers who dislike to bleed, which is understandable, because i for one would have a hard time bringing myself to do that. I think it's less a product of the PG rating, though, and more that wrestlers today aren't what they used to be. People like the Undertaker, Kane, HBK, Austin, Jeff Hardy, and pretty much everyone in the old ECW, put life and limb down to entertain us, and some ended there careers doing so. It seems like alot of the new blood just aren't cut from the same stone, i mean Mr. Kennedy was fired on the spot because he gave Orton a stiff suplex, which is debatable i'm sure, yet Undertaker takes that suicide dive every wrestlemania, Kane was set on fire at least on two occasions, and Sabu broke his jaw during a match, duct taped it shut, and finished the match! I dunno, i'm getting off topic.

 

[RVDgurl]

Bleeding for the sake of bleeding is never a good idea in wrestling. However, sometimes it does enhance the realism of a match such a a cage match/HIAC. Think about it- a guy gets his face raked across the side of a steel cage, yet there's not a scratch on him. It just doesn't make sense. Fences are not smooth and almost always have litte pieces of metal sticking out all over the place. If someone is being thrown into a cage or having body parts raked against it, there should be blood.

 

[maar130]

Well, Yes and No.

Like a lot of people said, sometimes it does not make a difference.

For me it really depends on the kind of match, for example, an Iron man does not need blood at all because is about how far you can go at a 100%.

A Hell in Cell one on one or the Elimination Chamber usually need blood to ad Drama ecause both of them are not about sportmanship, they are about brutality and is for special ocassions, not to be use all the time because it loss its purpose.

Blood only adds drama to a very violent or already dramatic situation.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

It all depends on the situation. If people are bleeding in just some random match with no story (like 80% of all abyss matches, or pretty much any match on the independent circuit) then theres no reason for it. On the other side for a feud like lets say Cena vs. Orton, blood would be OK because it could add to the drama of the match (Like when flair bled in his match with Savage at WM8). In some cases it can help a match or feud (like Jannetty getting thrown through a plate glass window by Michaels), but in most cases these days blood is unnecessary.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Shit yes it matters, given the proper situation. Dont get me wrong, im not saying EVERY big title match needs to have it, but shit, if we are going for realisim here.....then yes, its a necessary thing. The HIAC is made to look like absolute shit now. Did you have even the slightest feeling that ANY of those matches were the slightest bit brutal? Nah, neither did I. It highly increases the drama, and emotion of an atmosphere, this has been proven by medical studies even. On an entertainment medium which is entirely based upon emotional involvement, yes, I would say it really matters in many cases.

 

[The Brain]

I think most agree that we want blood, but only on rare occasions. If not for these forums I probably would not have noticed the lack of bloodshed lately. I watched wrestling for years with almost no blood at all. There were only a handful of matches that had blood for the first ten years I watched WWE. Then came WrestleMania 13. WWE was going in a new direction and attitude had arrived. Bret Hart vs. Steve Austin at WrestleMania 13 is one of the most memorable matches in WWE history. Imagine that match without the blood. Not nearly as special. Now imagine is there were bloody matches throughout all of 1996. Bret and Austin could deliver the same match at Mania and it would not be as special. That stood out because it was different. It was special because you hardly ever saw blood like that.

Blood being used too often is pointless. It’s like anything else. See it too much and we become desensitized to it. There are some matches that had blood where it was unnecessary. I don’t think there was any reason to have blood during the main event at WrestleMania XX. I don’t think that added to the story at all. On the other hand I think blood was used appropriately during the first hell in a cell. The match would have still been good without blood, but blood added to the match. Someone else mentioned HBK vs. Taker from Mania this year. Yes it was a great match without blood. That match didn’t call for blood. Blood shouldn’t have been used and wasn’t. When I look back most of my favorite matches don’t have blood. Blood is only effective when it’s used sparingly. Did anyone really care when Ric Flair bled? He did it so often that you noticed more when he didn’t bleed than when he did.

What I’m saying is blood should only be used when it’s called for. That may be only once a year and that’s ok. I don’t think blood is gone forever. Just think about it. Next time you see a match with blood it’s going to seem really special. If you’ve been watching bloody matches every month none of them would stand out and you wouldn’t care.

 

[Blade]

Generally, I don't mind the lack of blood. I mean, I don't particularly like watching guys bleed and it never adds anything to a match.
But damnit, it adds to a feud. If we see a heel beating up a face, it's standard. It's a beatdown, that's it. But when the heel doesn't stop until he makes the face bleed, well then we know there's something really personal going on here. And I think, in that sense, it can add to angles.

What I find incredibly ironic is that smarks are people that analyse everything and take the kayfabe element out of wrestling. Yet, the bleeding they crave so much is strictly for kayfabe purposes. If they're not looking at it in a kayfabe manner, thinking "Shit, this feud was just taken to the next level", then really they're just thinking "ZOMFG I LUV WATCHN PPL BLLLEEEDZ."... Which is either sad or sick, I can't tell.

 

[Tyler44]

Blood will make a match be remembered. What i mean is that if there is a Hell in a Cell match and the match is between 2 boring people (maybe like Batista and Triple H) and they just fight without any blood, people will remember it as a boring hell in a cell match. But if it is a match between 2 boring people or 2 entertaining people and there is a shit load of blood, then it makes the match seem much more epic and entertaining.

Side note- Who is Vince mainly targeting, 5 year olds, 7 year olds, or 12 year olds? There is not blood anymore for 2 reasons each with 4 words, AIDS and PG-TV...but why would a 12 year old or anyways a 7 year old watch wwe and be "scarred" by watching someone bleed? It's not like they haven't seen a movie before and wouldn't you think it would be smarter to have someone like Orton make Cena bleed? If kids really are to believe Orton is "twisted and evil" (Michael Cole), then why not make him destroy their hero