Whats the big deal about blood on tv?

[PositiveBlack]

To put it simply wrestlers are the modern day gladiators. If your going to fight then I want to see the most barbaric blood spattering every man. Yes you can have a good wrestling match with out blood but that's not what people want. The men want blood. But WWE isn't promoting to men. They cater to kids and by the way kids don't watch CSI or Crminal Minds they watch WWE! So its a no brainier for me. Kids=no blood=bad matches.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

It's pretty much already been said why blood isn't allowed in the WWE. Health and safety issues of course, I think someone already mentioned Bob Orton bleeding all over The Undertaker some years back and then disclosing that he'd contracted a type of hepatitis in the past.

As Sly pointed out in his first post, there are various states that have extremely strict policies when it comes to blood. In Kentucky, there is indeed a no blood policy and any wrestling company that refuses to adhere to it can be banned from performing in the state. Now, I've been to some small indy shows here in KY and some of them do often ignore the policy. However, WWE & TNA are far too large to believe that they could get away with it. I'd be willing to bet there are similar clauses in a number of other states.

Since the death of Chris Benoit, the WWE has been placed under a tremendous amount of scrutiny. I know some want to kid themselves by saying that Benoit's actions have nothing to do with it. Must be nice living in Neverland. At any rate, whenever the news talked about this, you only heard the WWE being talked about. You didn't hear mention of the NWA or TNA or anyone else for that matter. They have the luxury of not being directly in the crosshairs since they're not nearly as big of a company. For all intents and purposes, the United States Congress threatened to bend Vince McMahon over a table and make him its bitch at one point. It scared Vince into taking the welfare of his wrestlers more seriously because if he didn't, somebody else would whether he liked it or not. Aside from all that, the WWE is a publicly traded company. The fact that the McMahons do own the vast majority of the stock doesn't mean that they don't have as much of a responsibility to other stock holders as the heads of any other company.

I don't need to see a man smashed in the face with barbed wire to enjoy wrestling, I don't need to see blood pouring down someone's face in order for me to think it's a good wrestling match. There's plenty of people doing that kind of stuff in their own backyards if that's what you have to have in order to enjoy yourself.

The way you hear people complain, you'd think that bloodshed was something that happens often in wrestling and that's simply not the case at all with most companies. If you're a fan of "hardcore wrestling", then I'd recommend just setting up something in your own backyard, pull some friends in, and go at each other with florescent light bulbs and boards with barbed wire nailed into it. The WWE has shown many times that you can have a good "brawl" without blood. Blood in general has played such a minor role in wrestling overall that I can't help but feel all this love of blood has a lot to do with some fans still being in an ECW frame of mind. I know that every match in ECW wasn't hardcore but, let's be honest, it's what ECW is remembered for and it's what ECW alumni tout whenever they talk about the good old days.

 

[MisterRob]

I don't understand why anyone can argue blood is NEEDED in wrestling. There's absolutely no reason it's needed.. not to improve a match, not to improve a feud, certainly not if the storytelling and talent are good enough. Sure it can make sense in a cage match when two rivals are in some bitter feud and supposedly hate one another. But that still doesn't make it necessary. Nothing is taken away from the WWE product by NOT having blood, because it's unecessary to begin with. You're talking about a person physically cutting THEMSELVES open. Repeat that to yourselves and think of any other instance, or anything else on television that that seems a reasonable action.

Then take TNA. Lately I've seen lots of blood in TNA, especially from Ric Flair who for weeks was just bleeding like a pig on television. It added nothing, in fact I felt it detracted and I found it fake and silly. Blood doesn't equal realism. In fact, if you think about any other sport.. take MMA for instance.. if someone's busted open and their cut is bad enough that they're bleeding and it's not stopping.. what happens? The fight is over. The referee ends it. So why in the world would it be more realistic for a wrestler to continue performing when he's cut open and bleeding all over the place? It makes NO sense, actually. So, in fact, WWE is doing the most realistic thing when it comes to blood.

 

[hatehabsforever]

For me, it's not only a question of blood in professional wrestling, it's more a question of unnecessary blood. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big proponent of the necessity of blood in the first place, but I also would not be opposed to a little on occasion, provided it was not a regular occurrence and provided it was within reason.

For example, Kane versus the Undertaker in a Hell In A Cell could and should have been a violent and brutal match. That's not to say there had to be blood all over the ring, but if one guy smashed the other guy into the side of the cage and opened up a little blood, that would be OK. It would add a little realism to the match and make the intensity looked somewhat ampped up. That's not to say that the match was lacking because of the absence of blood, but in this case, some blood would have been OK.

Unlike TNA, where on a typical episode of iMPACT, there's blood in multiple matches. Unnecessary blood, and too much of it. Hell, Ric Flair will start to bleed just because he's cutting a promo. I'm not a supporter of this, it's excessive and unnecessary, and this is the sort of thing that portrays professional wrestling negatively and ends up with an absence of blood altogether.

Everything in moderation, I guess. Personally, I could live with a total lack of blood in professional wrestling altogether. But I could handle some of it on occasion based upon the appropriate circumstances.

 

[An Angry Blonde]

To be quite honest I completly forgot about bleeding in the wwe until now, hell theirs only ONE match in wwe that requries blood to sell the match and its a fucking FIRST BLOOD MATCH, not a hiac, steel cage, extreme rules, buried alive,ladder,tlc, or any other match for that madder, as long as the people in the match can give a good preformance. WWE is fine without blood, and doesn't really help a match ethier, if anything it hurts the match and kills the momentiom. The last match i remember in wwe that involed blood was jbl vs. john cena was two years ago in a first blood match, and i think it was at extreme rules last year(im not so sure.)

Now TNA, on the otherhand might as well be a freaking slaughterhouse, the second week i started watching it hogan and flair busted it eachother wide open, which was very distracting. Im not sure if tna can afford treatments for one or several guys getting some diese, since if ever went public that didn't pay or assit in payments they might as well close before most of their talent leaves, or new rookies stop coming.

To be quite honest i don't need blood in the program, leave that shit on the videogame where it's more optional to see it or not.

 

[Rayne]

To put it simply wrestlers are the modern day gladiators. If your going to fight then I want to see the most barbaric blood spattering every man. Yes you can have a good wrestling match with out blood but that's not what people want. The men want blood. But WWE isn't promoting to men. They cater to kids and by the way kids don't watch CSI or Crminal Minds they watch WWE! So its a no brainier for me. Kids=no blood=bad matches.

Yeah... except professional wrestling is staged, and gladiators in the Colosseum actually killed each other. I believe the parallel you are looking for would be Mixed Martial Arts, and even there fighters are having their cuts covered in Vaseline every five minutes.

 

[HBKevin]

Very rarely blood can give a match a big match feel, like the end of a long feud, steel cage blow off match, whatever. The more often it's used, the less effect it has on the crowd. It's desensitization. But in the modern day, they are just getting smarter with protecting the athletes. Banning unblocked chair shots, teaching wrestlers how to pull punches better, not letting them slice their heads open with razors. Ever looked at Dusty Rhodes' forehead? That is some nasty scar tissue.

 

[LigerBomb]

Along the lines of Sly's response it's also very important for WWE to distance themselves from boxing and wrestling commissions i.e. sport authority agencies/governing bodies so as to not be bound by all their rules and regulations and to cement the mainstream "Entertainment" classification Vince has so long desired for his product. Blade jobs, and the like are just antiquated and unnecessary parts of the psuedo-sport know as prowrestling. As someone has already stated, in MMA fighter wounds are tended to once they happen so as to not cause problems. Obviously it would be more realistic then for WWE to treat bleeding as if it were real and to tend to and stop the bleeding once it accidentally happens.

 

[Terminal Sledgehammer]

Blood shouldn't have a big role in wrestling. That isn't saying it shouldn't have any role. Take Hell in a Cell for example, the match has almost always had blood drawn in it. Why? Because it is an extreme match. Extreme means to go as far as it can go, so blood should mean something special, not something that happens just because you want a feud to go to the next level. There are other means to do so (like destruction of property ). I would say that having blood on my screen on a wrestling show more than once a month, hell even two months, is taking away from the product.

 

[WweBreezybre]

I think you guys are missing the point the OP asked whats the big deal about blood and you guys have only bought up two main arguments. # 1 Blading: I agree blading is bad and Im glad it was banned but there are other ways to get blood into matches without blading. # 2 Its too much violence for kids blah blah blah: I really dont want to hear this argument because lets face it wrestling is going to be violent with blood or without Hell ive seen far worse things in kids shows then blood. ( Kidnapping,attempted murder,robbery ) AND THATS ON PBS

 

[Syborgg]

In most "real" professional sports such as Hockey, Basketball and Football, if you get busted open, you must leave the playing surface to get cleaned up. It's not because they don't want the kids seeing the blood. It's for the health and safety of the athelete. This is the biggest reason that the blood has been taken out. All the people saying that blood makes the match better kind of insults the ability of the wrestler. I mean try watching Steamboat vs. Savage at WM 3. That is still arguably one of the best matches of all-time and their is not a drop of blood in it.

Someone up there said it's entertaining to see someone bleed? WTF? Maybe you should try doing what they do and see if it's worth it or not. What kind of human being wants to see another guy bleed? I mean maybe you have some issues that need professional attention.

On the topic of what's the big deal? Really there isn't a big deal. Like I said kids would see blood in a hockey game or basketball game. But it's not just about possibly traumatizing kids, it's about the safety of the superstars. I think some of you guys forget that it's rated PG and not G. Meaning kids should only watch with their parents approval and discretion. G would be something like Sesame Street.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Funny you should mention Wrestlemania 8 and Flair's bladejob. Flair was fined $500 for obviously blading during his match against Savage because back then the WWF had banned wrestlers from doing it.

Bret Hart was able to get away with it and make it look like an accident.

So, after Wrestlemania 8, you didn't see wrestlers bleeding until Wrestlemania 13.

That's 5 years without anyone spilling a drop of blood. If you were watching during that time, you would've barely noticed it.

I wasn't watching wrestling in 1992 because I was 2 years old at that time but I do know the story. Flair did a bladejob and tried to sell it off as a legit cut when he went backstage because he thought that the blood was neccesary to drive home the intensity of that feud between him and Savage.

Look niether you nor anyone else can deny that blood has helped tell a few stories in matches of the past. It was present even back in the 1980's when WWF was even more PG than it is today. Its just a direction that WWE programming has taken in the last two or three years which has its share of pros and cons.

One obvious negative of this is stopping the match for the medical team to come out and clean up the blood if a wrestler has legit cut himself. It completely destroys the momentum and in some cases even kayfabe. If you don't believe me check out John Morrison vs Jack Swagger from earlier this year on Smackdown. Morrison stayed down for ages when he was hit by a simple kick to the gut because during that time the medics were cleaning Swagger up.

 

[ThUnDeRpHoEnIx]

I remember TLC last year Christian got busted open and Shelton had to keep being pulled back by the ref while Christian was getting checked up by the medics.

The only actual match I can think of that had blood which made it more epic is Eddie Guererro vs JBL at the Great American Bash 2004.They had a good feud up to this point and Eddie cut himself wrong in this match and blood poured out like joey mercury.His face was a crimson mask quickly and when he was standing there holding the WWE Title after hitting JBL and getting himself DQed, that image was imprinted on my mind forever.

 

[Davi323]

I wasn't watching wrestling in 1992 because I was 2 years old at that time but I do know the story. Flair did a bladejob and tried to sell it off as a legit cut when he went backstage because he thought that the blood was neccesary to drive home the intensity of that feud between him and Savage.

Because HE thought, not because the bookers of the match, or the management of the company he worked for thought.

I remember that feud. The blood was completely unnecessary. Their feud was intense enough without Flair trying to pass off the bullshit excuse for blading. You put two of the greatest in ring tacticians in the ring together, like Flair and Savage, and you need to bleed to sell the concept? Total bullshit. Flair's blading was 100% superfluous.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Because HE thought, not because the bookers of the match, or the management of the company he worked for thought.

I remember that feud. The blood was completely unnecessary. Their feud was intense enough without Flair trying to pass off the bullshit excuse for blading. You put two of the greatest in ring tacticians in the ring together, like Flair and Savage, and you need to bleed to sell the concept? Total bullshit. Flair's blading was 100% superfluous.

And that, with all due respect, is your opinion. Ric Flair is one of the greatest of all time. He knows a thing or two about how to intensify feuds and not to mention as to what works and what not. Maybe you as a smark now you do get the fact that the feud was intense. But think of it as a mark. This guy has allegedly had a fling with your wife and he is making no bones of the fact that somewhere within him the fire still burns. What would you want to do to such a guy? Seeing the guy's face covered in blood would have got a great reaction from the crowd. Maybe it was wrong but it kinda worked at that time. The thing is maybe some would have actually defended Flair had this been a topic about the match itself and not one about banning blood to be seen on TV.

I'm not exactly saying that WWE should revisit the kind of violence seen in the Attitude Era even though I am a fan of it due to the health hazards involved. But at the same time it does look a bit stupid if medics come to clean you up when a match is in progress.

 

[Davi323]

too bad they had already done the whole Randy Savage is jealous angle multiple times before, without the need for bloodshed. Neither George the Animal Steele or Hulk Hogan had to bleed in their feuds with Savage, both of which were cenetered on Elizabeth, and Savage's insane jealousy towards anyone who looked at her the wrong way. Because the same overall story had been done previously without bloodshed, you can't claim it was needed here.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

too bad they had already done the whole Randy Savage is jealous angle multiple times before, without the need for bloodshed. Neither George the Animal Steele or Hulk Hogan had to bleed in their feuds with Savage, both of which were cenetered on Elizabeth, and Savage's insane jealousy towards anyone who looked at her the wrong way. Because the same overall story had been done previously without bloodshed, you can't claim it was needed here.

You know maybe that is why Flair did the bladejob. He wanted to take his feud with Savage too a different level but it had been done a lot of times. So maybe he tried to spice up the storyline a bit more by mentioning those photographs and doing that bladejob. I'm not sure but maybe thats what was going through Ric's head.

Even if you discount this match, you surely cannot just ignore the impact blading has had in certain matches like Austin vs Bret at Wrestlemania 13.

Again as I mentioned earlier I'm not asking for WWE to return to the attitude era or something but blading can surely add to a match in the case of an intense feud.

 

[People's Champ]

For me I see no need for blood and never really cared for it. Since they've stopped it I really haven't noticed its missing. And I don't really understand why people feel that blood is necessary. I haven't watched a match where I said "you know this match is ok but man if it had blood this would be epic!". I just don't care. As has been said there is the whole issue of health and safety. And its funny to see people just push that to the side because they want to entertained by blood. I agree with a poster from earlier (Jackhammer I think) who says this is basically people still stuck on the ECW thing. Fans from the '90's with the Attitude Era and ECW who saw good to greats matches and because they had bllod felt that it was needed. And in all honesty those matches still would have been good without it. Again, there's no need for blood and its something people need to just get through their heads and move on.

 

[wwefan4lyfe]

well with wwe being pg and all that they got rid of the blood for the kids but in my opinion wwe needs to allow blood on thier shows to make thier product seem more realistic...u just cant have hardcore matches without some blood,i mean i know if someone hit me on the head over and over again with a kendo stick my head is either going to start bleeding bad or my skin is going to break...see to me thats what made the attitude era work,because wwe had realism to their product and people actually believed it and the superstars werent that careful in the ring,they just went at it full bore but now with the pg era u can tell the superstars are being extra careful with how they do things in the ring during matches as to try to not make the other superstar bleed

 

[The Brain]

I just want to point something out. Between WM3 and WM13 you could probably count the number of matches that had bloodshed on one hand. For many years it was not necessary and nobody noticed. I don’t really care that we don’t see blood anymore. It would be ok once in a while, and by once in a while I mean like once a year.

Even if you discount this match, you surely cannot just ignore the impact blading has had in certain matches like Austin vs Bret at Wrestlemania 13.

The reason the blood was so awesome in this match was because we never saw blood like this. If we saw blood like this in matches throughout 1996 it wouldn’t have meant nearly as much. Some day we’ll probably see something like this again and when we do it will be meaningful because it will have been so long since we saw it. Between 1999-2006 we saw blood in so many matches that it lost all its meaning.

 

[GameOver]

Simple, public traded company. Shareholders/advertisers to answer too, meant to be a family product. Aiming towards kids as future fans

It's the reason for PG. end of story
Do you think they would really want to do this whole everything watered down stuff if they didn't have to?

thats saying

I agree with Washady, why do you need blood?
Blood does not improve the quality of a match one percent. If anything it has the opposite effect, as you have to look at it.

anyone who legitimately bleeds is losing blood which can be life threatening. Anyone who wants someone to intentially do that to themselves in the name of entertainment is a sadist and guys like Ric Flair that do it on purpose are idiots.

Flair is a bad eample as he pretty much bleeds to an extreme in every match so it's pointless and offpointing.

 

[Syborgg]

Ric Flair bleeding in a match is about as common as Ric Flair throwing about 100 chops during that same match. It really makes me question how good he really was, if he was that good then the blood wasn't necessary. Hell Ric Flair made himself bleed in promos. The guy's a nut, and now he's a nut that should have hung them up a while ago.

On to the topic, blood is not necessary and really the people that are looking for it should just look elsewhere. As for the example of the kendo stick, when's the last time you saw a kendo stick in a WWE match? It's been quite some time. Hell they don't even call them "Hardcore" matches anymore. It's a "Street Fight" or "Falls count Anywhere". Which would lead you to the possibility of weapons being used, but lately a chairshot to the back is about as hardcore as it gets. Time to just accept that family friendly WWE is here to stay and if you don't agree perhaps it's time you change the channel, or "Cross the Line" as they say.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

I just want to point something out. Between WM3 and WM13 you could probably count the number of matches that had bloodshed on one hand. For many years it was not necessary and nobody noticed. I don’t really care that we don’t see blood anymore. It would be ok once in a while, and by once in a while I mean like once a year.



The reason the blood was so awesome in this match was because we never saw blood like this. If we saw blood like this in matches throughout 1996 it wouldn’t have meant nearly as much. Some day we’ll probably see something like this again and when we do it will be meaningful because it will have been so long since we saw it. Between 1999-2006 we saw blood in so many matches that it lost all its meaning.

If you read my earlier posts you'll notice that you and I have the same opinion. I mentioned that blood can play an important part in matches which are a part of extremely intense feuds. Like I felt HHH vs Orton should have had a really brutal and bloody match to finish off their feud. I'm not saying that we should revisit the attitude era where people bladed every time they were hit by a chairshot but once in a while, probably once or twice in the whole year, I would like to see a really brutal match.

But I still do feel its a bit stupid to stop matches when a guy has a legit cut. It destroys the whole flow of the match.

 

[Cookie14]

To those of you who seem to think that bleeding makes mantches better, ask yourself 'Would I be willing to cut myself, (an act of self harm usually only performed by people with severe depression) just to please the minority?

If you answered 'YES' then answer the following question.

'Would I be willing to approach someone who was bleeding (and, lets face it, is almost naked) and rub myself against them?

If you answered YES to both of these questions then you clearly need to seek professional help regarding some possible mental health issues that you may have.

Why should we expect others to something that we would not only refuse to do, but be disgusted at even being asked?

 

[Rayne]

Why should we expect others to something that we would not only refuse to do, but be disgusted at even being asked?

Not that I disagree with your post in the slightest, but the answer to this would be because we pay them money. It really just depends on how much of a ****e the recipient is.