Does blood REALLY matter?

[RKORULZCENASUX]

Why not teh blood every HELL IN TEH CELL had blood except this ppv which was a stupid move on WWE for not allowing it TNA has more blood when Mick Foley bloodied up Abyss it fits there hell UFC draws blood more than our wrestling promotions why would kids be afraid of blood since sooo many horror movies have blood!

 

[wrestling fan 666]

I know that I'm probably in the minority in this but I really HATE the PG WWE. With this said, I truly believe that blood has a place in wrestling. As posted above, if used properly, it can be a great marketing tool. The culmination of a really good feud, the start of a really hated feud, or just to make it look as though having your head scraped against a cage (or having been hit with a chair 4 or 5 times) causes serious damage; which the WWE wants to warn the kids not to do this at home anyway. Not used everytime like the old bitch that is the Abyss on TNA; is there a match in which he DOESN'T bleed? As long as the participants agree that it is needed to tell the story and give it justice.

A good example was the Cena win over Orton for the title. During the torturing Orton gave him, if any blood was shed, the match would've looked better, for it would've shown how much more Cena was fighting back from; more memorable. Instead, it looked like he just brushed it off and beat him without any consequences to his body. We all know it's scripted, but does it have to look like it on a PPV?

 

[savoie2010]

Look when it comes to selling a match as "brutal" or as "hell" and have guys hitting each other with sledge hammers and every thing imaginable and grinding each other's faces into "unforgiving" steel; blood is important to make it believable. As said before, it doesn't need to be with every chair shot or whatever, but if you are gonna have matches like Hell In Cell, I Quit, Last Man Standing, 3 Stages Of Hell, and Elimination Chamber;matches that have generally seen their fair share of blood due to the amount of so called physical brutality involved, the yes blood is necessary.

 

[raphael93]

To me, the PG rating totally ruined what WWE used to be. I personally liked all the blood. Also, the PG rating has taken away the point in Hell In A Cell matches. I am used to seeing blood and gore in the Hell In A Cell match. besides its not like kids don't watch rated R movies, ya know what i mean. kids see worse than blood on WWE, they see sex in movies, drug dealing, all that adult content, so why get rid of blood on the WWE?

 

[school-of-hard-knocks]

I haven't really made my mind up on this topic. There are 2 ways I look at this:

1) Wrestling is supposed to be violent. They are trying to sell violence. Violence and PG don't go hand to hand. How can you have a guy kick another guy in the head and call it PG? It makes no sense to me. Blood is a part of wrestling. It is good to sell matches. And no a match isn't crap if it needs blood to be good. There are nameless matches out there that were great in themselves but the blood made them even better. Bret Hart Vs Steve Austin, Undertaker Vs HBK HIAC, HHH Vs Steve Austin, etc. When 2 wrestlers are in a feud and they do just about everything possible to hurt each other wouldn't it make sense for them to not only try to win the match but also injure one another as much as possible? Plus when a 265 pound man hits you in the head with a sledgehammer you are supposed to bleed. Staying away from blood takes a lot of intensity and realism away from the product.

2) It is entertainment and blood has been grossly overdone. You don't need to make someone bleed to sell a believable match. Also the less you see something the more special it becomes. If we don't see anyone bleed for 2 years and then it happens in a big match it is going to be that much more special just because we haven't seen it in such a long time. This is the reason HIAC has gotten washed down. It just isn't special anymore because there have been 20 HIAC matches in the last 9 years. And when you have 3 HIAC matches in 1 night it is very hard to make them special. So why sell the blood short by having people bleed all over the place like they do in TNA?

So in conclusion should there be no blood in WWE? No, that is a bad idea. But it should be used very rarely because that will make it more special to the fans. Plus if you rarely ever see blood once the wrestler does bleed as a fan you will be wondering if he cut himself or maybe he got busted open the hard way.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

I don't think blood is necessary most of the time, but when things are hyped as being ridiculously brutal, one would expect at least a small trickle. We don't need Foley shredding Edge's face with barbed wire every week on Raw, but when they're having a First Blood match, i don't expect them to play the 'bleeding from the mouth' card every time.

Did i miss blood during HIAC? No, i missed the weapons. HIAC is a problem now because they don't climb it anymore (for good reason), so they had to turn it into a hardcore cage match. Problem is, not one of the 3 HIAC matches on Sunday could even be called 'hardcore'. One chair shot per match and a sledgehammer shot and that's it? Over the course of 3 separate HIAC matches? LAME!

I don't expect blood on PPV, but i do expect them to have brutality that somewhat matches the hype.

 

[JBK2008]

Blood sells. I draws the fans in to believe in the feud more and it brings out the real hatred between 2 superstars. Right now though, it can't be used with the PG rating while WWE tries to bring in more kids. The day will come though when blood returns

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Blood sells.

Not really. They don't advertise blood, they advertise brutality, which is two totally different things.

A First Blood PPV main event would have people moaning.

There are plenty of ways to highlight how bitter a feud is, WWE should have Triple H use the sledgehammer more. A gut shot should come over as being more devistating that blood. WWE also sell head trauma well, without the need for blood.

 

[mdj2010]

Good Topic.

And interesting as I just watched the Backyard Wrestling documentary, which by the way is pretty good if you havn't seen it.
That actually led me to the theory that the era of blood in every other match has a harmful effet on younger wrestlers growing up. These kids were 'in the majority' obsessed by the idea of blood and how HARDCORE it was to juice or blade or whatever term you want to throw at sticking a razor blade in your head.
Id rather see young kids look at wrestling in the way I did growing up, seeing guys like Bret Hart, Dynamite Kid, Flair, Malenko (you know the names) executing wrestling moves to perfection. Not seeing a guy covered in claret and presuming you now had a good match.
Then again I guess it depends on the situation, the obvious one and I'm sure it will have ben mentioned is the Austin Hart submission match at WM13, now this definately needed blood, it helped sell a story and create one of the most loved bad asses in wrestling history. Which makes an interesting point, how many of the other matches in that card had blood? NONE!!! We even had a Street fight on that card and no blood. So it needs to be used in moderation if it is to effectively tell a story.
At Sundays ppv we had 3 hell in a cell and no blood, but who gives a damn, Morrison vs. Ziggler stole the shopw anyway, and you know why? WRESTLING!!!!!!
So I say it's great that they've cut back on the blood, as long as the next time we see it done it is done with purpose and impact. After all when I started watching it was for the W in any federations name. So I give a big thumbs up to WWE and a big thumbs down to W'BLOOD'E!!!!