Is blood necessary to have in wrestling?
 

Blading has been a practice in wrestling since the beginning. With the PG era in full force, seeing someone don the crimson mask in the WWE is most likely not gonna happen. With the exception of a few blood mouths here and then, I can't remember the last time someone was fully busted open. Personally, I don't think it's completely necessary to have it, but it has its place. I was thinking about that match where Orton busted Cody Rhodes open with the ring. Despite never airing it, they made reference to the incident.

Not a fan of blading at all. But at the same time, I wouldn't deny the fact that beating someone to a bloody pulp is a really strong enhancement for a storyline/feud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mfc3...B356C732266207

The most convincing!

Now if you need a reason to "not" do the whole blading thing, ask those who were cut by Abdullah the Butcher.

Fuck! That match still scares the shit out of me.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7jf3Pwy-Zoc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OF COURSE CUZ IF THERES NO BLOOD ITS NOT RASSLIN WOO WOO WOOOO RASSLE RASSLE RASSLE!

I seriously thought the chairshot did it, his blood was practically squirting! RIP to the crazy SOB, he knew how to put on a show.

it adds realism to the match.

It definitely shows there's a part of society that still clings to the gory gladiator matches of ancient Rome. I bet people would go bonkers and cheer to see fighters slaughtered when they lose a match if it was allowed.

I'd order a PPV to watch people get eaten by tigers.

Also, everyone could only have one title reign ever.

I can't lie... I'd probably watch it too! The Tiger could be the heavyweight champion, and I'd feel sorry for the poor bastard who straps it around his waist.

It keeps with tradition...... everyone once in a while it is okay and helps to further a storyline (i.e. would Wrestlemania 13 Bret Hart & Steve Austin mean as much if Austin passed out without donning the crimson mask?)

So do spinal injuries and early deaths.

All shit we don't really need.

Not the same thing as superficial bleeding.

blading has been around since the beginning.

why get rid of it now?

In terms of shit we don't need? It is.

In terms of severity? No.

It has its place in wrestling, but the Attitude Era completely desensitized the fans to it and took away its mystique. We don't need blood to that extent, just like we don't need swearing or raunchy stuff to the extent it was back then.

I think the past few years of no blood is helping rather than hurting long term, because the first time someone blades in a hot angle it'll be a pretty big deal. Stopping matches mid-match for a trickle was a stupid practice and I'm glad they stopped that (for now, anyway - Linda's running again remember).

At this point, I wouldn't mind seeing blading coming back to WWE on a limited basis. For big matches and important angles. I don't want to see blood on every show, and in some cases every other match, because it completely kills the gimmick. But some blood in a Hell in a Cell match, a Mania match or maybe an angle leading into an important PPV is fine.

It should only be used in rare cases.

We want more blood in Divas matches...we want blood.

What Xero said, the 1st time someone said bitch on Raw again everyone thought it was the return of the attitude era. If its used as part of a big angle/match then it adds rather than detracts as long as its used in rare cases.

What? Someone said 'bitch' on Raw?! OMG PG IS OVER!!! YAY!!!

Better if it is just used for certain cases as a way to make it more important when it actually occurs or as a way to show how brutal a feud has been developing between wrestlers.

I remember back in 2004 when Triple H or Shawn Michaels would blade pretty much every PPV, and mosts Raws.

Ric Flair would blade during promos.

Is it necessary? No.

Is it a useful tool to utilize here and there? Yes.

Should it be used as a way to cover up a lack of in-ring ability (Flair/Hogan, I'm looking at you)? Definately not.

Here's a sub-question:

Does the blood NEED to come from 'blading'? As in, could they use fake blood to achieve the same result?

Pretty much my thoughts on the subject. :y:

I say save the blood for big matches and angles. However, I don't mind the blood, if it was accidental (example: Bret Hart vs. Roddy Piper at WrestleMania VIII)

Except Bret did admit to blading in that match. It was just done in such a way that no one KNEW he bladed at the time.

The risks of cutting too deeply, health of the wrestlers, lowering the spreading of diseases. Just because something's tradition doesn't mean we should question its necessity.

Slavery used to be tradition, but I don't think it should be brought back.

And that's the way it should be, if someone gets color.

You'd think a queer would be more attuned to the risks implied in blood.

Bring Back Slavery *clap clap clapclapclap*

No it isn't necessary, wrestling is fake, everyone knows it, and blood just magnifies the fact that everything they do is predetermined. It has no place in the WWE environment, or in any wrestling organization.

There match at the Rumble comes to mind. I remember when Micheals hit the SCM on Triple H, you can see his foot sweep the blood off of him.

In the read "blood feuds" it is necessary. Only in a couple cases, I cannot think of a feud off the top of my head, but you know when it is necessary when it comes

The feuds nowadays arent as 'fierce' as HBK/Y2J etc etc

So no need.

Ah, but then you could argue that the fueds don't seem as fierce BECAUSE of the lack of claret.

Of course, the more informed/logical will likely put it down to the fact that for the most part fueds/storylines are rushed.