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

[@smarkmouth]

I say this as a fan of the occasional blood spot; if you say you need blood, you've made me sick.

After everything else these guys give for their craft; their knees, backs, joints and the rest of their body, you need their blood?! This is completely asinine! Watch Kurt Angle walk to the ring these days, with clear pain in the knees, and tell me you need his blood. How about Villano III, did you need his blood?

Scar tissue is worth it, though, right? You needed the blood after all.

You can reference the 80's through 00's all you want, but those were more naive times. You are blatantly ignoring modern evidence of disease transmission. Jack-Hammer referenced the Abdullah incident. The wrestler in question was named Devon "Hannibal" Nicholson. I'd advise anyone who needs to see blood watch the documentary about that incident. It's on youtube.

You can reference the need to maintain kayfabe, ie when a head is slammed against a cage; we suspend our disbelief every Monday night. Can you truly not go this one extra half-step?

As I prefaced this all, I am a fan of the occasional bloodspot. I'd estimate it would belong in >1% of matches, after controlled blood testing both athletes. However, if I never saw a bloodspot again, I wouldn't lose sleep. If people who work in the business have decided it's an unnecessary risk, I'm going to assume that they know a whole lot more about it than I do and reconcile my entertainment to that decision.

I look forward to any replies from people who need the blood, but if you want me to take you seriously, I'd advise you don't use any smilies.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

I say this as a fan of the occasional blood spot; if you say you need blood, you've made me sick.

After everything else these guys give for their craft; their knees, backs, joints and the rest of their body, you need their blood?! This is completely asinine! Watch Kurt Angle walk to the ring these days, with clear pain in the knees, and tell me you need his blood. How about Villano III, did you need his blood?

Scar tissue is worth it, though, right? You needed the blood after all.

You can reference the 80's through 00's all you want, but those were more naive times. You are blatantly ignoring modern evidence of disease transmission. Jack-Hammer referenced the Abdullah incident. The wrestler in question was named Devon "Hannibal" Nicholson. I'd advise anyone who needs to see blood watch the documentary about that incident. It's on youtube.

You can reference the need to maintain kayfabe, ie when a head is slammed against a cage; we suspend our disbelief every Monday night. Can you truly not go this one extra half-step?

As I prefaced this all, I am a fan of the occasional bloodspot. I'd estimate it would belong in >1% of matches, after controlled blood testing both athletes. However, if I never saw a bloodspot again, I wouldn't lose sleep. If people who work in the business have decided it's an unnecessary risk, I'm going to assume that they know a whole lot more about it than I do and reconcile my entertainment to that decision.

I look forward to any replies from people who need the blood, but if you want me to take you seriously, I'd advise you don't use any smilies.

You do realize not every wrestle looks like that. u know. Like Ive stated before this isn't ballet or any soft sport. Its wrestling.
Nothing wrong with blading from time to time. Doesn't have to be in every match. But most of them.
The 80s through 00s are not naive times, they were the best times years of professional. So stop with that shit. They had passion and willing to put their bodies on the line for entertainment like any other sport like hockey, football and basketball and boxing.
Blood, sweat and injuries happen in wrestling. Its a violet sport. Not a kiddie sport.
I love blood, I wish it was still here in the present. Thats my opinion.

You reference adullah the butcher, he bladed him without his knowledge, thats way different. That's why you test wrestlers for hep C before they go wrestling.

Goes to show what I've been saying before about today's wrestling fans. They are too soft, weak and sensitive. The world we live in. PC world
They only want boring shit. And don't want change.
Like the majority of fans these days.

 

[laodaron]

Goes to show what I've been saying before about today's wrestling fans. They are too soft, weak and sensitive. The world we live in. PC world
They only want boring shit. And don't want change.
Like the majority of fans these days.

Stop spamming and trolling. This is the same thing you've said in about 5 or 6 posts in this thread.

Who gives a shit? The good thing is that the WWE agrees with us, the majority who do NOT want to see blading in professional wrestling, and you can keep watching CZW.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

Stop spamming and trolling. This is the same thing you've said in about 5 or 6 posts in this thread.

Who gives a shit? The good thing is that the WWE agrees with us, the majority who do NOT want to see blading in professional wrestling, and you can keep watching CZW.

So I'm trolling for stating my opinion. Typical mark. . You need to grow up. Like for real. Not that serious. This is hilarious., your getting mad at someone for stating their opinion. But ok. Enjoy your day bro

 

[@smarkmouth]

You do realize not every wrestle looks like that. u know.

No. Just enough of them.

Nothing wrong with blading from time to time. Doesn't have to be in every match. But most of them.

I agree with the first half of the statement. The images I've posted is what happens when you blade in "most of them". From an entertainment standpoint, blood in "most of them" subtracts any dramatic impact, unless you're just blood thirsty. Stick to modern day horror torture porn if you need blood.

The 80s through 00s are not naive times, they were the best times years of professional. So stop with that shit. They had passion and willing to put their bodies on the line for entertainment like any other sport like hockey, football and basketball and boxing.

So you're saying that we knew everything we know today back in the 80's? Shit, Chris Nowinski wasted his time on all that research for nothing! We didn't know half the things we know about the human body that we do today. That's clearly what I meant when discussing the naivety of the eras.

The 80's through 00's were indeed pretty great. It had very little to do with blood. It had to do with great in ring story telling and logical booking. Yes, the blood added to story on occasion. I've put the key words in bold in case you can't find them.

Blood, sweat and injuries happen in wrestling. Its a violet sport. Not a kiddie sport.
I love blood, I wish it was still here in the present. Thats my opinion.

We're not discussing sweat or injures, so quit showing off your vocabulary.

You reference adullah the butcher, he bladed him without his knowledge, thats way different. That's why you test wrestlers for hep C before they go wrestling.

Thanks for agreeing with one of my points in confrontational phrasing.

Goes to show what I've been saying before about today's wrestling fans. They are too soft, weak and sensitive. The world we live in. PC world
They only want boring shit. And don't want change.
Like the majority of fans these days.

Let me try to put this simply, just for you. Sometimes blood, good. All the time blood, bad.

This has nothing to do with being PC or not, or being 'sensitive'. Blood was once used in order to intentionally make the audience uncomfortable, and was done so on occassion. When blood came to a point that it was used all time time, it lost all dramatic impact, and at the expense of the safety of the artists. If you have little regard for the desired dramatic impact of blood and need it in every match, go waste your time with CZW.

 

[Darkshadow1234]

No. Just enough of them.

I agree with the first half of the statement. The images I've posted is what happens when you blade in "most of them". From an entertainment standpoint, blood in "most of them" subtracts any dramatic impact, unless you're just blood thirsty. Stick to modern day horror torture porn if you need blood.



So you're saying that we knew everything we know today back in the 80's? Shit, Chris Nowinski wasted his time on all that research for nothing! We didn't know half the things we know about the human body that we do today. That's clearly what I meant when discussing the naivety of the eras.

The 80's through 00's were indeed pretty great. It had very little to do with blood. It had to do with great in ring story telling and logical booking. Yes, the blood added to story on occasion. I've put the key words in bold in case you can't find them.



We're not discussing sweat or injures, so quit showing off your vocabulary.



Thanks for agreeing with one of my points in confrontational phrasing.



Let me try to put this simply, just for you. Sometimes blood, good. All the time blood, bad.

This has nothing to do with being PC or not, or being 'sensitive'. Blood was once used in order to intentionally make the audience uncomfortable, and was done so on occassion. When blood came to a point that it was used all time time, it lost all dramatic impact, and at the expense of the safety of the artists. If you have little regard for the desired dramatic impact of blood and need it in every match, go waste your time with CZW.

It really does have to do with being PC and sensitive it really does.
Your missing my point. I never said use blood all the time. I said most of the time, if it adds excitement to the story
I don't agree with your statements because I see by your comments, your just like everyone else. SO good day to you sir. lol
No use arguing with you about this.
Not changing my mind
Chris research isn't really all that accurate tbh.

Like I said before, not every wrestler looks like that.

Typical mark. Like I said by your comments.

 

[@smarkmouth]

*Sigh* You win, guy. I'm taking the bait. Give yourself a high five.

It really does have to do with being PC and sensitive it really does.
Your missing my point. I never said use blood all the time. I said most of the time, if it adds excitement to the story
I don't agree with your statements because I see by your comments, your just like everyone else. SO good day to you sir. lol
No use arguing with you about this.
Not changing my mind
Chris research isn't really all that accurate tbh.

Like I said before, not every wrestler looks like that.

Typical mark. Like I said by your comments.

I'm not sure if your arguments are deliberately vague or you just have poor grammar and spelling. I need to ask you a few questions for clarity. Keep in mind, I'm asking for replies to my previous post, not just tossed stones. That's how a discussion works!

-How does it relate to being PC?
-Does an overuse of blood dilute the dramatic impact?
-Without dramatic impact, is it worth risking the artists health and safety?
-How many wrestlers should look "like that" before it's an issue? (Keep in mind before your answer, google image search is one hell of a tool!)
-Do you watch CZW? Why/Why not?
-Do you know the difference between your and you're?

I'm looking for discussion. I'm not looking to change your opinion, as I'm not a qualified psychiatrist.

 

[FromGlasgow]

I think it does and has added to certain matches but only in moderation, Don't want to see every wrestler on the card all bleeding because it just gets overkill, I understand why they don't do it so much now with the diseases through bleeding and the WWE's current audience demographic so I wouldn't stop watching wrestling because theres no blood now, WWE has its problems but lack of blood isn't one of them. Never understood the mentality of the independant wrestlers bleeding from all over their bodies some times 3 times per night like in the death match tournaments including a few permanent scars and actually risking their lives on occasion only for like $100 pay.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I think it adds to the story in blood feuds or cage matches.

I don't think it at all makes it look more "real". You don't see UFC fighters with one clean cut around their hairline. They get bloody lips, noses, the eyebrow, etc.

That said, if I'm a wrestler, I would consider getting busted hard way (usually a sharp punch to the eyebrow where the sharp bone easily lacerates the thin skin".

 

[DirtyJosé]

No, because "blood" doesn't make anything "more real". That can be achieved through better booking and less bullshit. Blood NEVER made me care more, nor did it ever seem more real. Try punching someone's face and getting them to bleed. A lot harder than you think. If you are asking for more blood, you don't get what makes for successful booking.

You probably also need some help.

 

[Mudlup50]

I'm sure people have agreed with me but I think some blood should be used. I'm talking once a month tops. Modern WWE doesn't have it enough to make it seem "brutal" but in the past it was too much. Balance is crucial.

If it happens too much, it doesn't seem like a big deal. But if it doesn't happen it seems so fake. I mean in a real fight if you're bashing your opponent with your fist or a ladder, they bleed. Granted, we can look past it.

 

[The Mattitude Era]

Also, in a real fight, a stone cold stunner would never actually catapult you across the ring, yet it does in wrestling and we don't complain about the realism of it. 99% of stuff that happens in wrestling would never happen in a "real fight."

 

[It's...Baylariat!]

Lots of folks might be misunderstanding... it's not a 'need', as in, it MUST happen. I'm just saying... going from zero tolerance of blood to letting the realism of a match happen. Like, for example, if a ladder cuts someone, then it cuts them... no need to interrupt the match to glue them up... let it go and be responsible about it.

But I'm not for blading for the sake of blading. That's asinine... Flair did it too much and he's one of my all time favorite wrestlers. He didn't need to bleed in every match, because it took away from the spectacle of bloodshed.

To me, cage matches, weapons matches, or street fights could warrant it... but not in every match and not blade so much that someone's being put in danger.

Drama is a huge part of wrestling and when someone's 'busted open', it creates a sense of potentially being 'real'.

Once again, need doesn't = must. It simply means going from zero times to maybe 2-3 times.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

People need to move on from this.

A publicly traded company with PG-rated programming is going to allow people to cut their own heads with razor blades in order to induce profuse bleeding.

Read that again.


Not going to happen. NEVER going to happen.

Besides, we get a decent amount of hardway color in gimmick matches as it is.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Does WWE need bloodshed to make their action look more realistic? Absolutely not. Would some occasional blood add realism and effectiveness to selective matches and be very effective? Undoubtedly. Which of course are somewhat contradictory statements. Especially when as a rule of thumb, I'm opposed to the concept of blading.

There are plenty of examples when a wrestler has been bloodied in a match, and has added so much realism and drama into the situation that it can't be denied. What do I think of at WM13 when Stone Cold Steve Austin lost to Bret Hart (and was launched into superstardom in the process)? Austin in the middle of the ring, his face a bloody mess, refusing to quit. Instantaneous badass, earning the moniker of Stone Cold. Would that have happened without the blood, I have no doubt that it would. But it definitely added to that particular moment, and the lasting image it left.

Steel cage matches, or for that matter, ladder matches, could benefit from occasional blood as well. The cage, the elimination chamber, the Hell in a Cell, all are supposed to be weapons to be used to punish the opponent. In the current product, though they have been reduced to a fence which blocks the view of the action. They don't keep combatants contained within. They don't keep interference out. And they aren't a weapon in any manner. Having a guy get smashed into the cage, eliciting a little blood in the process, that would be perfectly fine with me. I don't want to see it every week on RAW. I don't need it on every PPV. But seeing it every now and then, I think that would be perfectly fine.

He'll even the debut of Kevin Owens was more effective because of blood, albeit it accidental. Advance billing of this guy is that he's a legitimate tough guy, a true bad ass. Gets his nose smashed in in his debut match, only to return at the end, all stitched up, to lay out the new NXT champion, instant credibility in my mind. Which sure, could still have been accomplished without the blood, but the bleeding added to it for me.

Am I advocating the practice of blading, no way. But I would be able to live with on occasion, in selective circumstances for specific performers in the appropriate scenario. Hell, I don't know, is fake blood even an option? Hollywood can make things look pretty realistic sometimes, could that be an option? I'm not sure. But something needs to be done to the current product to make it more realistic and believable. Creative is in shambles, the worst it's been for quite some time, despite tremendous talent at their disposal, and they haven't been able to right the course. They are slipping back to the cartoony, pre-Attitude Era product, and for the first time in a really long time, I for one am losing interest, and I consider myself a pretty typical pro wrestling fan so I doubt I'm alone. Is blood the answer, I'm not really sure. But the realism it can bring if used in moderation and in the right degree and in the proper situation, would be a hell of a lot better than bunnies, bulls, and ballroom dancers. Because that shit is not getting the job done for me. At all.

 

[Softcore Holly]

I actually think WWE feels more "real" without the blading. Like I'm sure most of us long time viewers would see someone gushing blood like they were in a Kill Bill movie and know instantly what they just did to themselves, and that comes off as really fake. However at recent events like TLC and Takeover where Owens, Ziggler and Harper were bleeding THAT made things seem real since it was actual injuries that caused those bleeds.

Now I don't actually want the guys to try to get blood out of each other, it isn't at all necessary to have a awesome match and really it's not worth the extra effect/health risks. However when it does naturally happen we know it wasn't due to someone hiding a razor blade in their tights, and if you're going for "realism" it doesn't get any more real than that. But then again if you're really looking hard for realism I would say you're looking in the wrong business.

 

[CyberPunk]

Does WWE need bloodshed to make their action look more realistic? Absolutely not. Would some occasional blood add realism and effectiveness to selective matches and be very effective? Undoubtedly. Which of course are somewhat contradictory statements. Especially when as a rule of thumb, I'm opposed to the concept of blading.

There are plenty of examples when a wrestler has been bloodied in a match, and has added so much realism and drama into the situation that it can't be denied. What do I think of at WM13 when Stone Cold Steve Austin lost to Bret Hart (and was launched into superstardom in the process)? Austin in the middle of the ring, his face a bloody mess, refusing to quit. Instantaneous badass, earning the moniker of Stone Cold. Would that have happened without the blood, I have no doubt that it would. But it definitely added to that particular moment, and the lasting image it left.

Steel cage matches, or for that matter, ladder matches, could benefit from occasional blood as well. The cage, the elimination chamber, the Hell in a Cell, all are supposed to be weapons to be used to punish the opponent. In the current product, though they have been reduced to a fence which blocks the view of the action. They don't keep combatants contained within. They don't keep interference out. And they aren't a weapon in any manner. Having a guy get smashed into the cage, eliciting a little blood in the process, that would be perfectly fine with me. I don't want to see it every week on RAW. I don't need it on every PPV. But seeing it every now and then, I think that would be perfectly fine.

He'll even the debut of Kevin Owens was more effective because of blood, albeit it accidental. Advance billing of this guy is that he's a legitimate tough guy, a true bad ass. Gets his nose smashed in in his debut match, only to return at the end, all stitched up, to lay out the new NXT champion, instant credibility in my mind. Which sure, could still have been accomplished without the blood, but the bleeding added to it for me.

Am I advocating the practice of blading, no way. But I would be able to live with on occasion, in selective circumstances for specific performers in the appropriate scenario. Hell, I don't know, is fake blood even an option? Hollywood can make things look pretty realistic sometimes, could that be an option? I'm not sure. But something needs to be done to the current product to make it more realistic and believable. Creative is in shambles, the worst it's been for quite some time, despite tremendous talent at their disposal, and they haven't been able to right the course. They are slipping back to the cartoony, pre-Attitude Era product, and for the first time in a really long time, I for one am losing interest, and I consider myself a pretty typical pro wrestling fan so I doubt I'm alone. Is blood the answer, I'm not really sure. But the realism it can bring if used in moderation and in the right degree and in the proper situation, would be a hell of a lot better than bunnies, bulls, and ballroom dancers. Because that shit is not getting the job done for me. At all.

This. Blading doesn't need to return. If during the course of match someone's busted open, that's fine, and realistic. We have two recent examples in Kevin Owens and the Ziggler/Harper match. They were busted open and added that to their in-ring story without blading. Intentional blading, not required. It doesn't make anything more realistic.