Does the WWE need bloodshed to make a match/feud more 'real'?

[It's...Baylariat!]

As it's known by many on the forums, I'm an advocate for old-school territorial wrestling where there was bloodshed and concession stand brawls and all of that good stuff... but these days, the WWE's gone toward more of a PG demographic and has cut out blood all together when it comes to ANY match, whether it's a cage match, Extreme Rules match, etc.

My take is that cage matches should have some bloodshed. I'm not saying ridiculous amounts or anything, but the cage needs to be deemed dangerous and a little nick on the forehead would do the trick.

Same goes for Extreme Rules matches... not saying spill pints of blood all over the arena, but a shot to the head with something would make one's head bleed right?

What say you?

Is bloodshed needed to make matches or rivalries more 'realistic'? Or is it just the old-school mentality I have?

 

[Darkshadow1234]

I agree with you, I think matches do need more bloodshed. Not saying in every match but some of them.
I hate nowadays, when someone bleeds the match stops. Ruins the flow of the match.
Yes tlc, hiac, cage and other types of hardcore matches need blood.

But we live in a sensitive and pussy filled world. PC world

Wrestling is just really boring these days

I miss the 80s, 90s of wrestling

 

[The Mattitude Era]

There's no need for blood. It's unsanitary and not worth the risk. You don't see actors blading for a movie scene. No point for it in wrestling. I'm a big advocate for no blood. Just the thought of blading is barbaric to me. I never really thought about it until I took a good look at Dusty Rhodes' forehead.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

There's no need for blood. It's unsanitary and not worth the risk. You don't see actors blading for a movie scene. No point for it in wrestling. I'm a big advocate for no blood. Just the thought of blading is barbaric to me. I never really thought about it until I took a good look at Dusty Rhodes' forehead.

i respectfully disagree with you. there is a need for blood. Thanks for proving my point

 

[CyberPunk]

I am not in favor of blading. Great storytelling can be done without it. Eventually, we should remember that these people are still putting their bodies of on the line for the sake of entertainment. There are enough injuries to contend with. Why add to it?

Moreover, you'll see occasional bleeding anyway. Blood may add to a story, especially a heated rivalry, but intentional blading is not needed.

 

[CyberPunk]

i respectfully disagree with you. there is a need for blood. Thanks for proving my point

Why do you need blood? When did intentionally cutting someone open become sign of manliness? They are already going through tables and taking chairshots. What does blood add to it?

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Well for me, I love when a wrestle does blading, it adds to the match and makes seem more violet and real. And it adds to the story.
Back in the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s and early 00s, wrestlers were more passionate and tougher than the wrestlers now. Way tougher. They were bleeding day in and out.
Nowadays people are too sensitive and weak.
Blading doesnt have to be in every match, but some of them especially the hardcore matches.
This isn't ballet.
I miss the days of wrestling and hardcore matches. Seems like a lost art now.
I miss wcw, ecw and old wwe (1996-2001)

Nothing wrong with blading.
There are other things in wrestling way more dangerous.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Why do you need blood? When did intentionally cutting someone open become sign of manliness? They are already going through tables and taking chairshots. What does blood add to it?

Because its freaking wrestling thats why. It adds to the match, makes the matches more exciting. And adds to the story.
Totally missed my point. But your proving point now by your comment.

its not ballet.

Blood doesnt have to be in every match. As I stated earlier but in some of them.

People are way too soft nowadays.

 

[Soulblazed]

I agree with you, I think matches do need more bloodshed. Not saying in every match but some of them.
I hate nowadays, when someone bleeds the match stops. Ruins the flow of the match.
Yes tlc, hiac, cage and other types of hardcore matches need blood.

But we live in a sensitive and pussy filled world. PC world

Wrestling is just really boring these days

I miss the 80s, 90s of wrestling

I agree with ya..Certain matches should have blood in them..With the right wrestlers in the right feud using the right psychology, blood can be used great..Some of the matches which should by default have blood are -Hell In The Cell, Steel Cage, Elimination Chamber, I Quit, Last Man Standing, etc

Those matches I mentioned above should have blood, especially the steel cage match..A cage match without blood truly cheapens the feel of the match..Not to mention that just about all the cage matches in WWE nowadays barely focus on the brutal psychology of the steel cage match. Instead, the wrestlers usually have a normal match, only once in awhile using the cage as a weapon. The last good steel cage match in the WWE was between Ric Flair and Helmsley in 2005 at Taboo Tuesday for the IC Title..The reason that match stands out so much is because Flair and Helmsley wrestled the match in a 1970s NWA style where the match was pure psychology.

In closing, blood should at the very least be in the matches I listed above in order to end feuds/write wrestlers off tv, but not used every week.

Highlights from the Flair/Helmsley match-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86fjHWYAFDc

 

[Navi]

Well for me, I love when a wrestle does blading, it adds to the match and makes seem more violet and real. And it adds to the story.
Back in the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s and early 00s, wrestlers were more passionate and tougher than the wrestlers now. Way tougher. They were bleeding day in and out.
Nowadays people are too sensitive and weak.
Blading doesnt have to be in every match, but some of them especially the hardcore matches.
This isn't ballet.
I miss the days of wrestling and hardcore matches. Seems like a lost art now.
I miss wcw, ecw and old wwe (1996-2001)

Nothing wrong with blading.
There are other things in wrestling way more dangerous.

But it's not real, it's a staged fight. Listen I don't give a rat's ass one way or another, but the WWE has gone PG, and it comes with limitations. No bloodshed is one of them.

Now in the Owens match the other night, he was knocked silly by Parker and the broken nose was an accidental shot. If it had been done deliberately, Parker's ass would have been in a sling. Did it add to the match, not really for me, I didn't care too much. I just don't go all crazy when I see someone bleeding.

It's not a sign of weakness in my case anyway, and I'm a woman. If you miss the wrestling of a decade ago, then why are you watching now? It's totally different from the way it used to be.

 

[CyberPunk]

Because its freaking wrestling thats why. It adds to the match, makes the matches more exciting. And adds to the story.
Totally missed my point. But your proving point now by your comment.

its not ballet.

Blood doesnt have to be in every match. As I stated earlier but in some of them.

People are way too soft nowadays.

Too soft? Yes, it's freaking wrestling and not a war. They perform stunts and moves which are dangerous. If anything, they should use cages in a better way. If a worker bleeds because of a bump, that's OK. But intentional blading? It doesn't add anything. These people are still acting in a make believe form of entertainment. It doesn't make anyone look any tougher.

 

[klunderbunker]

Need? No. Not in the slightest.

However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice once in awhile. There's something about it that just makes a feud look and feel so much more intense and violent and it's hard to put into words. One of the most iconic moments in wrestling history is Austin screaming into the camera as blood flows down his face. That scene is nowhere near as intense or important if the blood isn't there.

Now that being said, no it isn't required. I more than understand why WWE doesn't want blood on their screens and it's a fair decision to make. It might help things a bit, but it does bring detractors who are going to say it's barbaric and way too violent no matter what, so why give them more things to point out? On top of all that, blood isn't going to matter if the story you have is boring in the first place. Come up with some stories and characters that I care about and then worry about the salt and pepper on the steak as Austin calls it.

 

[Navi]

I respectfully disagree. Smh, thats the problem with wrestling fans these days.

What seriously? Listen i'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you about this, but I've been watching wrestling for a long time. I watched through the hardcore era when blood was in almost every match. If it wasn't there was a problem. But I'm a realist and the WWE has changed, and fans have changed along with it. I still enjoy the product today because other than that shitshow called TNA, it's the only wrestling show worth watching.

 

[OYDK]

WWE definitely does not NEED bloodshed. It's just a minuscule part of the giant that is pro wrestling, and not too many people seem to miss it anyway. However, I will say that bloodshed does add that extra element in a match and used to be one of the key components in trying to tell a story in the ring. Call me savage or whatever, but I like blood. In a UFC match, I like to see two guys busted up because you really get that feeling of , "Wow, those two guys just went through a war." Same with pro wrestling. If you see two guys beat the hell out of each other with chairs, tables, a kendo stick, a cage etc. and they come out of it looking fresher than ever, you don't get that ultimate feeling of satisfaction (or at least I don't).

I think Kevin Owens will prove that blood could definitely work wonders for someone. I have a feeling we'll be seeing the image of him standing in the ring during his debut, with blood running down his face for a long time to come.

 

[laodaron]

Honestly, if the WWE brought blood back into their creative, I'd have to leave. I've been watching since I was in diapers in the early 80s, and I can most assuredly state that the times I felt the most uncomfortable were when wrestlers were bleeding.

If I watch a Hollywood movie, those guys aren't blading to make a fight feel more real. The same with the WWE. The fight seems real by the ability to tell the story in the ring, not by the ability of the wrestler to slide a sliver of dirty razor blade out of his sweat dripping wrist tape soaked in the sweat and blood of the other guy he's fighting and slice his own forehead.

The other issue I have is that it doesn't even look real. Oh look, Wrestler A took a head bump into the steel ring post, and put his hand there first to cushion the impact. OH BAH GAWD, HE'S BUSTED OPEN. Now, that wrestler is dumping gratuitous amounts of blood everywhere from a bump that we all know wasn't really a shot to the head.

I think it's stupid if the WWE calls a timeout if a guy gets a hard way, like Orton at MitB, or whatever. But blading should be illegal as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mustang Sally]

There seem to be enough instances in which bleeding comes naturally during the course of a match.....I don't think they need to blade to enhance the product.

Whenever someone gets cut, it's not as if the TV cameras are instructed to avoid showing it, nor are the announcers told to ignore it; they call our attention to it. I mean, why not?

Still, blood is a part of pro wrestling's "glorious" past and I can understand folks that think it has a place in the spectacle. In a strange way, one had to appreciate the dedication of the old-time guys who brought a blade into the ring with the idea of cutting themselves to increase the fan's "enjoyment" of the whole thing.

In short, I'll take the bleeding as it comes....and when it's real and not self-induced, the realism has an appeal. Today, people like to watch reality shows?

Well, great. Watching two guys fight and having one (or both) draw blood is as real as it gets.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

The blood can make things more entertaining but it doesn't make things more "real". It just makes things seem more dangerous. Some time unnecessarily dangerous.

After 30 years of watching it (or for any one over the age of 12, 30 minutes) nothing about pro wrestling can make it seem more real. It is incredibly fake from the moment it starts through the commercials - where some how no one has ever been pinned - to the end. More real is not realistic possibility. Some blood for entertainment purposes, sure.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't know if blading is more of a result of WWE going PG or if it has more to do with concern surrounding the possible transmission of diseases. Up until several years ago, the notion of being exposed to infectious diseases like Hepatitis and possibly even HIV never occurred to me. Abdullah the Butcher was successfully sued over the fact that he had Hepatitis, kept it concealed, bled over an opponent and said opponent contracted the disease as well, essentially derailing his wrestling career. I can't remember the guy's name right off the top of my head but, allegedly, he'd signed with WWE but WWE had to rescind the contract once his status was revealed. There's also the incident with Bob Orton, Jr. & The Undertaker back in the 2000s in which Orton bled all over Taker with Taker being unaware that Orton had Hep C.

Sometimes, blading can add a little extra juice to things but, over the years, WWE has shown time & time again that their various brawls, street fights, etc. can be great matches without the use of blood. Whether it's in WWE or a small independent show, I don't need someone risking exposure to potentially deadly diseases just so I can have a bit of a thrill.

 

[LBGetBack]

Yes and no. I think there is absolutely a time and a place to where it adds to the match/feud(Austin in the sharpshooter wouldn't be the same without it). However, it should be RARE.

The era where every single PPV main event(and sometimes other matches on the same PPV too!) would feature blood was just overkill. Blood became meaningless. It became expected.

I'm hoping it's banned for now, just to get things back to a place to where when someone does bleed it's a big deal.

 

[LBGetBack]

I don't know if blading is more of a result of WWE going PG or if it has more to do with concern surrounding the possible transmission of diseases. Up until several years ago, the notion of being exposed to infectious diseases like Hepatitis and possibly even HIV never occurred to me. Abdullah the Butcher was successfully sued over the fact that he had Hepatitis, kept it concealed, bled over an opponent and said opponent contracted the disease as well, essentially derailing his wrestling career. I can't remember the guy's name right off the top of my head but, allegedly, he'd signed with WWE but WWE had to rescind the contract once his status was revealed. There's also the incident with Bob Orton, Jr. & The Undertaker back in the 2000s in which Orton bled all over Taker with Taker being unaware that Orton had Hep C.

Sometimes, blading can add a little extra juice to things but, over the years, WWE has shown time & time again that their various brawls, street fights, etc. can be great matches without the use of blood. Whether it's in WWE or a small independent show, I don't need someone risking exposure to potentially deadly diseases just so I can have a bit of a thrill.

Yeah, stories like that are absolutely insane to me. If guys are going to bleed then the company needs to test them to make sure first.

 

[capnwillie]

If it happens, it happens. Blading is idiotic and a great way to end up with blood-borne illnesses that can end a career or kill you. If it happens hard way, not much you can do and from time to time, it can add a new dimension to a match or help to get someone over (see: Kevin Owens debut.)

 

[Bockwinkel's Class]

Need? No. Not in the slightest.

However, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be nice once in awhile. There's something about it that just makes a feud look and feel so much more intense and violent and it's hard to put into words. One of the most iconic moments in wrestling history is Austin screaming into the camera as blood flows down his face. That scene is nowhere near as intense or important if the blood isn't there.

Now that being said, no it isn't required. I more than understand why WWE doesn't want blood on their screens and it's a fair decision to make. It might help things a bit, but it does bring detractors who are going to say it's barbaric and way too violent no matter what, so why give them more things to point out? On top of all that, blood isn't going to matter if the story you have is boring in the first place. Come up with some stories and characters that I care about and then worry about the salt and pepper on the steak as Austin calls it.

I'm watching the early Starrcades on the Network right now and there's one where I swear to God someone gets busted open in every match ('85 maybe?).

 

[Michael J. Fox]

You can't compare wrestling to a movie, c'mon. Storytelling is one thing, but if a man gets thrown into a cage several times and isn't busted open you are disregarding logic. It makes sense that he would show some trauma after numerous blows to the head. Blading should only occur where it makes sense, i.e. any gimmick match. Blading doesn't determine a wrestler's ability; blood simply adds a realistic element to the physical nature of what is occurring.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

You can't compare wrestling to a movie, c'mon. Storytelling is one thing, but if a man gets thrown into a cage several times and isn't busted open you are disregarding logic. It makes sense that he would show some trauma after numerous blows to the head. Blading should only occur where it makes sense, i.e. any gimmick match. Blading doesn't determine a wrestler's ability; blood simply adds a realistic element to the physical nature of what is occurring.

Thank you, thats what I'm been saying. I love for blading and blood to return to wrestling, it adds more to the story and to the match. Makes the matches seem better. IMO

I noticed alot of wrestling fans these days are very soft and sensitive these days. Especially on this forum. Like damn, its just blood smh..

No one complained in the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 00s. Now its bad. Fickle fans.

 

[Dirk]

No, "need" is too strong a word. On the other hand, people don't "need" to barbecue over the weekend, watch their favourite team play or have a few beers in the fridge "just in case".

But there are nice things...

WWE, with a family-friendly product, doesn't want the claret staining the ring on every Raw. The absolute last thing you want is having a blood-thirsty and insatiable audience combined with your wrestlers giving each other the Hep. You want a safe thing you can put on four days a week with the smallest risk, so I can absolutely understand the aversion to blood.

However... if there's an on-off feud that's been going on for a year or more and one dude is making the other one's life hell and he ran over his dog and screwed his wife and his mom... it's going to be violent and there will be blood. Once a year, between two professionals, people who have been medically tested, yes, bleed a little. People talk about Austin's face, but even John Cena got a lot of love two years ago when he let Brock bust his lip open.

Having said that, "extreme" doesn't have to be a bit of blood. I'd rather see a "holy shit!" spot than blading. Stuff like Bourne taking the RKO in mid-air, Christian Frog Splashing from the top of the Elimination Chamber, Punk pile-driving Cena in a once-off bit of madness... things like those. These kinds of spots are risky, but one per PPV anywhere on the card isn't that bad, surely?