Does blood help wrestling?

Celtsfan1980 · Post #1 » by **Celtsfan1980** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:46 pm

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think the first Hell In A Cell match with Shawn and Undertaker would have been the same without blood. There are many other matches this applies to as well. On the other hand, some wrestlers bleed match after match after match. It gets very reduntant after a while. Ric Flair would be an obvious example, but even Bret was guilty of bleeding in a few matches where he probably shouldn't have. I'll likely be in the small minority, but I'm going to say no.

sh00n · Post #2 » by **sh00n** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:36 pm

Bret was probably the best at choosing when to get juice. And he made Flair look like a ****ing fool at Wrestlemania when he juiced against Piper and then Flair did it right after against Savage. Flair abused the juice and it made it funny after a while to see him go at it.

But as for blood adding to matches, I can tell you this: Stone Cold wouldn't never rose through the ranks of wrestling as fast as he did were it not for his juice he got against Bret. That put him over with the fans moreso than I've ever seen with a single wrestler, ever.

Celtsfan1980 · Post #3 » by **Celtsfan1980** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:40 pm

sh00n wrote:Bret was probably the best at choosing when to get juice. And he made Flair look like a ****ing fool at Wrestlemania when he juiced against Piper and then Flair did it right after against Savage. Flair abused the juice and it made it funny after a while to see him go at it.

But as for blood adding to matches, I can tell you this: Stone Cold wouldn't never rose through the ranks of wrestling as fast as he did were it not for his juice he got against Bret. That put him over with the fans moreso than I've ever seen with a single wrestler, ever.

I agree with the last paragraph. The Bret-Piper match was one of those that came to mind. Do you really feel it helped the match?

Post #4 » by **Stanford** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:41 pm

sh00n wrote:But as for blood adding to matches, I can tell you this: Stone Cold wouldn't never rose through the ranks of wrestling as fast as he did were it not for his juice he got against Bret. That put him over with the fans moreso than I've ever seen with a single wrestler, ever.

Double negative aside, I agree with this.

I watched TNA for a while last night, and I was excited to see some blood. The new WWE is definitely lacking because of the no blood rule, although I agree it can be overdone.

CapeCrusader · Post #5 » by **CapeCrusader** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:06 am

Theres blood and theres too much blood.

Post #6 » by **Walt Cronkite** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:17 am

I'm on the fence. I don't think wrestling NEEDS blood baths or blading, but having it removed entirely isn't the solution, either. How far along the Muta scale are we talking? 0.0 Muta isn't the answer, but fans shouldn't expect blood from any type of match. One of the things extreme style wrestling ruined.

jeffhardyfan52 · Post #7 » by **jeffhardyfan52** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:15 am

It depends on what kin of story they are trying to tell
if you are ment to belive that both guys hate eachother more then anything blood would help

Post #8 » by **sunshinekids99** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:47 am

I think for awhile it was just over done by the WWE. At times I think it really adds to the match tho. I've seen some times with HHH and HBK that the blood fact really added to the match.

jeffhardyfan52 · Post #9 » by **jeffhardyfan52** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:44 pm

Its al about the story or a match type,
If your in hell in the cell, it needs to be bloody because you promote it as the most devastateing match your company has , there needs to be blood in it to get the point across more so and make it seem like the wrestlers have gone through hell and back in side the cell

Post #10 » by **Walt Cronkite** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:52 pm

Disagree. Blood shouldn't be expected. I think that's why it's banned right now in WWE, it was too commonplace. It should be reserved for special occasions. So yea, Hell in a Cell is a great opportunity, but not every HiaC should be bloody or have blood at all.

Did Foley blade in his legendary UT HiaC? I think he was busted up from his teeth getting knocked out or his lip having a hole through it or something, but I don't remember him being a bloody mess and I think the point of the match was over for the audience.

Post #11 » by **Stanford** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:02 pm

Walt Cronkite wrote:I think that's why it's banned right now in WWE, it was too commonplace.

I think we know why it's banned right now.

Post #12 » by **Walt Cronkite** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:15 pm

I guess you guys do, I don't. There's been obvious blading in tna while I've been watching and I don't think it's added anything significant, maybe it can be used to mask an otherwise disappointing event, but that's pretty cheap. The match or feud or whatever should be able to stand on it's own.

jeffhardyfan52 · Post #13 » by **jeffhardyfan52** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:52 pm

seeing the blading takes away from it, but thats just the dumb camera guys

Celtsfan1980 · Post #14 » by **Celtsfan1980** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:03 pm

jeffhardyfan52 wrote:It depends on what kin of story they are trying to tell
if you are ment to belive that both guys hate eachother more then anything blood would help

I thought it's to add realism to wrestling. The Bret-Shawn and Undertaker-Mankind feuds were considered two great feuds during their time, but I don't recall blood being involved in any of their matches. The Flair-Steamboat matches are considered some of the best series of wrestling matches in history but I don't recall either bleeding. I don't feel blood helps any rivalry unless one wrestler is supposed to be getting beat up badly.

Celtsfan1980 · Post #15 » by **Celtsfan1980** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:09 pm

Stanford wrote:
Walt Cronkite wrote:I think that's why it's banned right now in WWE, it was too commonplace.

I think we know why it's banned right now.

I'd assume it's because they're catering towards children, but I do recall a match with Guerrero and JBL and another with Mr. Kennedy and Batista where the wrestler bladed improperly and bled profusely. If it gets bad enough, it could cause a lot of damage. I'd assume that has played a role as well.

sh00n · Post #16 » by **sh00n** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:01 pm

Stanford wrote:
Walt Cronkite wrote:I think that's why it's banned right now in WWE, it was too commonplace.

I think we know why it's banned right now.

Isn't it because Linda is running for Governor or something and they want a more PG rated show to help her chances? Cause I know they banned headshots with chairs too now.

Post #17 » by **Stanford** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:34 pm

sh00n wrote:
Stanford wrote:
Walt Cronkite wrote:I think that's why it's banned right now in WWE, it was too commonplace.

I think we know why it's banned right now.

Isn't it because Linda is running for Governor or something and they want a more PG rated show to help her chances? Cause I know they banned headshots with chairs too now.

Well, the pg rating is what I was getting at, but that's an interesting take on why they went that route.

sh00n · Post #18 » by **sh00n** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:38 pm

I don't know for sure, but I read it on rajah I think that that was a big reason into them going hard for a PG rating. Just makes me wish women's wrestling was considered PG13. That **** kills any pacing to an event.