Blood: Favourite Use; Do You Miss It?

[Low_Ki]

This is obviously a two part question.

In the history of pro wrestling, what has been the best use of blood? It could be in a match to tell a story, or on the build to a PPV. Anything you like.

My personal favourite use of blood was on the night of WWF Fully Loaded 1999 where 'Stone Cold' Steve Ausitn and the Undertaker were gearing up for their first blood match for the WWF Title. During the night Taker attacked Austin backstage and cut him open and later Austin returned the favour before the main event. This to me helped tell a great story once the match was under way and finished when Austin hit Taker with a camera to make Taker bleed and win the match. Quality story telling.

Also, the second part to my question is do you miss the use of blood in the WWE today? I know we have had a couple of 'hard way' bust ups (i.e Brock Lesnar/Cena), but there is no blading anymore.

So there we have it. I'm done now.

 

[KitsuneDreamer]

I don't have a definitive moment that involves blood, but one that comes to mind was Wrestlemania 13 Hart vs Austin in a No DQ Submission Match.

Austin refusing to give up, and not giving in, only to pass out from the pain and loss of blood, has stuck with me ever since I was a kid, and that surely was a moment where blood added to the integral part of the story.

As for missing blood use? Yeah, I kind of miss it, not saying it should be used nightly, but definitely on "Special Events" that need to add another factor of hatred and immediacy in a rivalry.

Ric Flair type blade jobs aren't necessary.

At an Extreme Rules "Special Event", there should be blood in there somewhere, I believe.

 

[Soulblazed]

I do miss blood, but for certain matches/feuds only..In Hell In The Cell, Elimination Chamber, Steel Cage, Last Man Standing, Street Fights, Stretcher and I Quit matches, they should all have blood in them to put them over as dangerous and rarely used matches. Each of those matches should be used very sparingly as a whole, i.e. turn the Hell In The Cell PPV into Halloween Havoc instead, for example. That way Cell matches will only be used to settle very personal feuds which is what it was meant to be instead of a pointless yearly PPV event. I don't think blood should be used every night nor do I think that wrestlers have to overuse blood and walk out of their match looking like Dusty Rhodes or Atsushi Onita, I just wish that blood would be used again in the matches I listed above.

I don't have a single favorite instance where blood was used..There's definitely a few that stand out to me, though. In the Pat Patterson/Sgt Slaughter Alley Fight the blood was perfectly used..Slaughter bled for most of the match until his manager The Grand Wizard threw in the towel, due to Patterson hitting Slaughter both in the face and in the back of his head over and over again with his cowboy boot, giving Patterson the victory(there was no ref or rules in the Alley Fight). The beauty of this is that the Alley Fight was done back in 1981 and has stood the test of time.

Full Slaughter vs Patterson Alley Fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrV4XaCuGP4

Another great match in which used blood wisely is the Dog Collar Match between Greg Valentine and Roddy Piper at Starrcade 83. Piper was bleeding from his ear and legit lost hearing in that ear as well, hence that added a different dynamic to the Dog Collar Match since Piper's equilibrium was shot along with having to fight Greg Valentine.

Dusty Rhodes vs Superstar Billy Graham stands out as well because not only did it help Dusty to establish himself as a wrestler, the use of blood also helped to establish his specialty match the Texas Bullrope Match in MSG to the East Coast wrestling fans who watched the WWWF at the time and were used to stars such as Sammartino, Strongbow, Graham, Koloff, etc

Full Graham/Rhodes Texas Bullrope Match from 1977-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcsW8HmFQUw

 

[Jack-Hammer]

In the grand scheme of things, I can't say that I miss it the vast majority of the time. However, that's not to say that the sight of someone bleeding in certain matches can't add another element to the story being told during the match. As another poster mentioned, the site of Austin at WM XIII with blood pouring down his face while screaming in agony yet refusing to submit took the match to another level. It's an iconic image and moment that some say ultimately started Steve Austin down the path to superstardom.

At the same time, however, it's not necessarily a must have for no DQ/hardcore type matches anymore when you take into account a few things that that've come to light I really thought of as a fan until the past several years. When it comes to being promiscuous, it's commonly known among fans that wrestlers are some of the biggest ****s going. In Bret Hart's last book, he basically hooked up with a different rat every night and I'm sure it's no different for many wrestlers today both in WWE and even out on the indy circuit. What's wrong with that, you might ask? Nothing really, unless you wind up catching something that can be transmitted. Abdullah the Butcher, for instance, was sued a few years back because he had Hepatitis C, had the disease for a long time, didn't tell anyone and wound up infecting a wrestler. Superstar Billy Graham blasted WWE for inducting Abdullah into the HOF as he'd been saying Abdullah had been doing this for many years.

Back in 2005, Cowboy Bob Orton was in WWE and working in a program with his son Randy with The Undertaker. Turns out that Bob Orton also had Hep C, he'd had it since he was a teenager, and bled all over Taker at Armageddon 2005. Taker was unaware that Orton had Hep C, though Orton claims that he'd told John Laurinaitis about it. Allegedly, Taker flipped out backstage when he'd heard about it, understandably so.

While blood may add another element to some matches, it's not worth the chance of someone being infected with an incurable disease.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I don't miss blood. But I look at some of WWE's matches over the last 5 or 6 years and I do feel that some of them might've been improved by a little bit of blood. Seeing as selling is a long forgotten art, the visual of somebody bleeding would add some much needed drama to some of The E's headline matches.

 

[OYDK]

Hell yeah I miss blood. To see somebody get the shit beat out of them and not bleed just doesn't feel as authentic as two guys who are busted open at the end of a match. It felt like those guys had a real war when it was all set and done.

As for favorite moments I gotta go with Austin-Bret Mania 13 and basically everytime Flair bladed. If I had to choose one Flair moment, it would be when HHH returned and turned on Flair, attacking him with the sledgehammer.

 

[Blade]

I'm never watching a match live and thinking "This could use some blood" because, if it's good enough, it usually doesn't need blood. And if the match sucks, blood seems gimmicky. But if I'm rewatching a match, I'll see where blood could add a little bit to the story.

For example, if Bray Wyatt was allowed blade, it would create some stunning visuals. Imagine Wyatt vs. Cena, with Bray cut open, blood all over his face, smiling from ear to ear, on his knees, begging Cena to hit him with the chair.

So yeah, I never miss it when I'm caught up in a match. But in hindsight, I think blood still has a place in wrestling as long as its not as overused as it was in the 90's.

 

[MCMG]

They completely over did it. The Ruthless Aggression Era was almost pathetic. It felt like every single match HHH, Shawn Michaels and the rest couldn't wait to add some colour to the match.

Blood should be a shock tactic. Cena against Brock worked perfectly. Blood should be used perhaps once or twice a year at the absolute most. It can help make a feud or match feel more personal and dramatic. Austin vs Hart is obviously the best example. Jericho v Shawn in 08 also used it well. These are good examples because they made sense and aided the story being told. Not bleeding for the sake of it.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think it definitely became overused, and that was dangerous. Not only the spread of diseases (which is extremely dangerous) but watering down the impact of seeing someone bust open. It was happening every couple of weeks it seemed, and it made the blood mean less.

However, sometimes matches could use that extra bit of realism, especially cage and hell in a cell matches where the whole gimmick is supposed to be extremely violent. Seeing HIAC matches end without any blood doesn't feel right to me.

Personal favourite uses of blood in WWE (not including the obvious Austin v Bret match) include

Cactus Jack v Triple H HIAC - Mick Foley turning back at the curtain with his hand in the air after losing in what was supposed to be his final match, with blood all over his face is a very emotional moment. It made us know Mick had given us everything he had.

Undertaker v Brock Lesnar HIAC - Seeing the blood literally squirting out of 'Taker's head is an incredibly disturbing sight, but it emphasises the war he was in against Lesnar, an unstoppable force. The mat ends up totally covered in blood as Lesnar nails the Deadman with an F5 to take the title.

Like I said, Hell In A Cell matches are supposed to be the Devil's Playground, the most violent brutal matches in WWE. To see them watered down into a gimmick PPV where they aren't even particularly violent any more is a shame to see. I can understand why WWE have done this, but as a fan it's disappointing.

 

[Naniwa91]

Truthfully, I don't miss it. Reason being because you see blood from situations (most of the time) where blood would not normally happen from.


I remember one battle royal when Edge and Batista attempted to spear one another simultaneously, and saw some blood on top of Batista's head. It just didn't seem necessary, and it seemed forced.

On the other hand, for reasons previously stated in this thread, blood can aid a storyline. As long as it doesn't turn into a bloodbath more than once. IMO, that's one area where writers would mess up, because the blood is used at the wrong time in the feud. Going back to that battle royal, its usage seemed forced to me because it was a battle royal, and the wrestlers in question weren't feuding at the time (if I'm wrong, correct me.)

Therefore, I agree that there are certain times and places to have one or both, or all wrestlers involved have some sort of blood exposure during the feud, I won't say that I miss it, because it isn't a necessary factor in showing quality of a storyline.

 

[Attitude_Era_Guy]

My favorite use is Stone Cold at WrestleMania 13. Refusing to give up with blood running down his face but eventually passed out. That's what made Stone Cold. Yes, I do miss it. You don't need a bloodbath, and I wouldn't like to see it every single night. But I think sometimes it can definitely elevate a feud.
_______________________________________________________________
RVD, CM Punk, and Chris Jericho.

 

[HORRORHOLIC]

I do miss it in certain situations, although it was being overused.

 

[Slash-LN]

I can't really say I miss it.
I like the idea that a poster mentioned above about Bray bleeding and smiling about it. It would have been interesting in that match but overall I never really even think about it.

I think the best use was the first time Undertaker was intentionally busted open. I'm not counting him bleeding from his arm. But the Raw where Shaw and Hunter busted him open for the first time. They made reference to the fact that no one had ever busted him open before so it added to the moment and was kind of a big thing.