Is Wrestling Better With Blood Or Without Blood?

[PlayTheGame]

I'm sure this thread has been done before, but after a search around the forums, I haven't seen it. The title of the thread says it all: do you think wrestling is better with blood or without it? Although this thread is under general wrestling discussion, it obviously is aimed a bit at WWE, who has obviously outlawed blading a few years back with the advent of the PG Era. There's really a case to be made by both sides, and there's really no right answer, as its all about your opinion.

I'll share my opinion (and vote) to start things off. I, for one, think blood/blading is very appropriate in the rights spots if done correctly, and thus I miss it in the WWE. Those against blood often stand by the belief that "blood doesn't add anything/there's no point to it." I vehemently disagree with this. Now, I'm not saying every match should be a hardcore bloodbath. No, I'm not one of those lunatics, nor would I want to watch that garbage all the time. However, certain matches really could be augmented with blood, and there's so many examples in the past. Certain feuds that culminate at PPV's should end up with both guys bloodied. Certain title fights should push both competitors to the point of being bloodied and bruised. Why? Because it is a visual representation of the storytelling of the match that evokes emotion. Plain and simple. Whenever blood is involved, the match is immediately heightened in my book. Call me barbaric, whatever. But really, how barbaric am I, if you also like to see guys beat the shit out of each other? So what if a guy cuts his forehead in the process? That's really the dividing line? That's really going too far? C'mon, give me a break.

As for a great example of the storytelling it provides to certain moments... there are so many examples, and I could sit here for quite some time telling you about all of my favorite moments involving superstars that have bladed. One that comes to mind immediately, and maybe the very best example, is the iconic image of a bruised and bloody Stone Cold Steve Austin in Bret Hart's sharpshooter. Instead of tapping out, Austin took the pain with blood running down his face into his mouth, screaming in agony, until he finally passed out and the match was called. The SCSA era was before my time, so during my early years as a wrestling fan, I wondered what the big deal was with him, why did everyone like him so much?? Well, after a little searching around, moments like that spoke volumes to me, and I didn't even witness it live. It elicted a great deal of emotion from me as the viewer. Now, that's what I mean.

So, what do you guys think? Please vote and post your thoughts about it.

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

I think it is. i'm not saying that every match should have blood in it, it's just when a guy strats bleeding in a match it can make things more intense. I don't think when I guy bleeds they should stop to clean him up, the Wrestlemania 13 with Bret Hart and Stone Cold, the blood isn't what made the match good. But that picture of Austin's bloody face is one of the most memborable images. We all loved it when Ric Flair would bleed he is the best bleeder when ever he would bleed his whole hair would turn red.
The I quit match at judgement day with JBL vs John cena is another good example I remember that match got really intense John Cena's whole face covered in blood. Those two had a long fued and it just showed how much those two hated each other that beat each other into a bloody mess. Blood isn't the most important thing in a wrestling match and doesn't need to happen all the time I just think in some matches when it gets to the point a guy starts bleeding it gets you more into the match it shows how tough a wrestler is even with a bloody face he won't stop and do what ever it takes to win the match. I think blood is good when it's done right
I own the Best of Cactus Jack in Japan on DVD and theres a lot of blood. One of the matches is the original barb wire match between Cactus Jack and Terry Funk. That is one of the bost brutal matches I ever witnessed both of them are a bloody mess at the end.
Has anyone ever watched matches of the Necro Butcher I never watched too much of him but he is crazy. His matches are insane

 

[Why Always Me]

Better with blood, but not all the time.

Sometimes, less is more. Same with head shots witha chair, once in a blue moon and it will be seen as a big moment. When Triple H hit UNdertaker at Mania last year it was a big moment (for me anyway).

Less is more.

 

[TakerDakSide]

Whenever it's really nessacary it can be a very good thing actually. It can help intensify the rivalry in busting up the opponent.

Going back to Undertaker/Austin in 1999 even though the First Blood @ Fully Loaded was theme of their rivalry it made their rivalry more intense than before. It increased the hate between the two as each would one up another. It even set a new/higher standard for both Taker & Austin in their career & the match made for one in the books.

That's how much influence blood in Wrestling can do for a storyline. But once again it must be used correctly on order for it to work.

 

[Miko]

Without, Ric Flair has cheapened blood far too much, almost as much as he has cheapened crying and cheapened his own legacy. That cunt.

It adds very little to anything, like swearing, sometimes it makes a moment a little bit better or more compelling but generally it is a shock tactic or desperation move to make something cool. As a whole I think wrestling is better off with no blood at all than blood overused. Makes people have to work a little bit harder to captivate an audience.

 

[¡Roján!]

Here's the dilemma, I love blood in wrestling when it is actually realistic. Like, when a wrestler blades after being hit on head with a chair or whatnot. That kind of blood can make things look more gruesome and brutal and can help sell the effectiveness of chairs and other weapons. However, when it gets used too often it diminishes the effect it causes, in the first place. That's why I'm sort of grateful that blood isn't around as much, anymore, especially with the amount of gimmick matches there are nowadays. Before, bleeding in a HIAC match was standard. Now, not so much. So, to answer your question... it could be better but, in moderation. Something which WWE and TNA get wrong on so many occasions.

 

[Shotaro]

When you watch modern WWE PPVs, if a guy gets cut he gets cut. I dislike blading for many many reasons. However if, for example, someone were to hit their head on a ladder or something along those lines and cut their head I wouldn't change the channel. Realistic blood adds to the match, blade jobs look totally ridiculous.

 

[DirtyD79]

If it's being used to tell a story such as that somebody has been beaten down severely or they're just plain determined to win the match yes.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

Blood can definitely add a lot to a match. It's when it's overused that it becomes an unnecessary part of wrestling. It's like with anything else, too much of one thing and it becomes boring. When it happens sparingly it's absolutely beneficial to a match.

 

[HBsam31]

With, for all the reasons stated by the above posters. I wanted to respond to this just to make mention of Stone cold/Bret hart. If done correctly it can add a whole lot to a match. HBK in the first hell in a cell match against Taker is another example. He won the match only after taking the beating of his life, and Kane attacking Taker at the end. Shawn laid out and confused with the crimson mask really added a lot to show that even though he won, he went through hell to get there. I don't want to see everyone bleed, but used very sparingly it can add that wow factor to a match.

 

[JWGunslinger]

Basically it's good when it isnt used in excess, if it's not in every other match and it aint bleeding like a faucet then I am 100 percent pro blood. Matches like Flair vs HHH at Survivor Series when Trips scrapes the screwdriver on Flair's head and it comes out like a faucet is a good memory but that is excessive for what we should see today, as long as it's in moderation then it can work perfectly well. Have someone get bloodied up in the chamber or something, build that up some more as a truely taxing match cut someone's head on the steel floor, but on a regular basis it should only come up every month or two.

 

[TheOneTheyCallOn]

I chose with blood but with a stipulation, if the blood is used in the correct way as in to further a story line or as part of say a hard core match up or such then it's fine, but using it just for the sake of using it is ridiculous. There is a time and place for everything.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I personally think the product is better off without blood, for the most part. If blood is used too often then it no longer gets perceived as a big deal when someone gets busted open. You rarely if ever see it today, so it would be a HUGE deal if anyone started bleeding in a match. I'm sure some will argue that having blood in several matches makes the product more interesting, and they are entitled to that opinion. I disagree though.

Honestly, I've gotta say that blood should only be used rarely in high profile feuds that need an incredibly intense moment in a match. The blood spot needs to also be saved for a match type such as Hell In a Cell, where it will come off as an even more intense moment. WWE made the right call when the number of matches featuring blood significantly decreased due to it making the blood spots more important; not to mention the fact that it's also safer for the wrestlers.

 

[Kenny Powers]

There is no need to have everyone bleed on everything like Ric Flair did last year. He pretty much bled every Impact and blood was used a lot in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Less is always more when it comes to blood. One example of the perfect use for blood that was unintentional was the match between Bret Hart and Steve Austin at WM 13. We all remember seeing Hitman with the sharpshooter on Austin with his crimson mask in agonizing pain. Along with Austin 3:16, that moment pretty much solidified Austin as a top guy.

Would the impact be the same if Austin was in the sharpshooter screaming in pain without the blood pouring down his face? Maybe not. There really is no need for blood but sometimes it makes the scene so much more dramatic. There is no need for wrestlers to blade, but if they do get cut open on accident why not exploit it? I understand if it was a medical emergency to have someone run down to the ring, but to stop someone from bleeding every time they have a scrape is ridiculous.