Does Blood Have a Place in WWE?

[Rosie]

Hello everyone, first real thread I am making on here so excuse me if I am nervous. But I saw something which I think can spark a debate.


Since 2008, WWE turned to PG with the last TV14 PPV being the Great American Bash. A part of PG wrestling is the removal of blade-ing, or purposefully cutting yourself to force bloodshed. Even Batista got a large fine due to him blade-ing in a cage match on Raw. Ever since, groups of WWE fans are pining for bloodshed. But is it necessary?

Something that blood offers from time to time is enhancement to a storyline. Some recent examples were Roman Reigns getting busted up, along with Triple H during their Wrestlemania feud, and the Hell in a Cell match between Undertaker and Brock Lesnar at Hell in a Cell. During those times, it was used to show the severity of the "blood feud" between the wrestlers. Even face of the WWE, John Cena in a recent interview with the Rolling Stone said he misses blood in WWE fights. But does it always mean something?

Popular WWE Youtuber, Adam Blampied, stated his stance on "PG vs TV14" in an video a while back.

Spoiler

To summarize, he stated that blood, although once in a while wouldn't hurt, isn't necessary to use blood to make entertaining storylines or matches.

This is a quick showing of two different sides, but I have to ask. Do you think blood has a place in WWE? Should they have more blood? Or should they keep the red stuff out of it?

 

[Monster]

I did not know that WWE had removed blood from the show. Seems like it is turning into a pussified reality show more and more.

 

[Roadster]

Yes, blood has always added effect to the story and plot of a match and story. Blood showed fatigue, brutality and aggression, something that makes wrestling amazing.

 

[Stopspot]

If you gotta have blood. Let it be natural, aka people getting busted open hardway. There's no need for people to run around with gigs hidden in their mouths or wrist tape. Also blood capsule technique has gotten advanced enough where it should be an acceptable substitute, while also not causing as much problems from various state athletic commissions.

There are better and easier ways to showcase brutality, realism, aggression and fatigue than blood. I agree that the odd blood spill adds to a match, but there's no reason to go back to the wild west blading days of the 80s and 90s when people gigged themselves in the forehead for nothing.

 

[seabs]

Yes, blood has always added effect to the story and plot of a match and story. Blood showed fatigue, brutality and aggression, something that makes wrestling amazing.

Not always, take most of Flair's segments in TNA for example.

As for the OP I'm for blood if used rarely, same as anything "extreme" really. If it's done too much it just leads to a desire for more and more which just dilutes the meaning.

 

[Stopspot]

Not always, take most of Flair's segments in TNA for example.

As for the OP I'm for blood if used rarely, same as anything "extreme" really. If it's done too much it just leads to a desire for more and more which just dilutes the meaning.

I might be making this up/remembering it wrong. But wasn't there a segment in TNA where Flair basically bladed getting in the ring?

Flair is the perfect example of overdoing it. Just look at his forehead. It looks like spam

 

[seabs]

I might be making this up/remembering it wrong. But wasn't there a segment in TNA where Flair basically bladed getting in the ring?

Flair is the perfect example of overdoing it. Just look at his forehead. It looks like spam

Probably, I know he did it in occasional promos. One which worked really well was vs Foley during the whole EV2 invasion.

Whilst we're talking Flair and blood I have to mention the old clusterfuck in the dying days of WCW. Flair and Hogan had a first blood barbed wire cage match (it get's better) which Flair bled halfway, Hogan went for a pin but was told he couldn't because it's a first blood but Flair pinned him with the figure four. [HASHTAG]#LockardedIt[/HASHTAG]

 

[Roadster]

Gimmick matches weren't their strong suite.

 

[seabs]

Gimmick matches weren't their strong suite.

World War 3 was dope, yeah the rest not so much. Funk no selling a kick from a horse was hilarious though.

 

[Roadster]

World War 3 and War Games.

 

[Rogue]

It'll always have a place, real or fake. Take Joe vs Balor for example, match was average but the fact that Joe got busted open made it feel more real. Added to the excitement of it, it was the best possible outcome following a debut from Nak. Granted, the fans kinda overdid it.

As for fake blood, it has its place too. But can sometimes look worse than a real cut. Like the blood tab Roman took when Trips beat him up, it looked brutal. It was needed for the WM build, though.

As long as it has a meaning it'll have a place. It'll never need to be in every couple of matches again, would wear off the reaction to it.

 

[Roadster]

Blades and blood have their purpose and their time. Bleeding for a mask removal (Flair) or taking off a coat (Flair) or talking a lot (Flair) is excessive. Big fights should have blood, take Lesnar vs. Taker at HIAC 2015, it was a great match only made better by the men that still busts themselves open the hard way, Lesnar and Taker.

 

[C.M. Shaddix]

Blood should be making a comeback soon, even John Cena says he misses blood, and when wwe was TV-14 Cena did do some good blade jobs.

 

[Roadster]

Blood should be making a comeback soon, even John Cena says he misses blood, and when wwe was TV-14 Cena did do some good blade jobs.

Judgment Day 2005 wasn't a good blade job, it was brutal and botched.

 

[seabs]

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with people blading if I'm honest, it just seems like an unnecessary step blood packs do the job for me.