|
|
Post by drifter on Jan 13, 2012 0:36:25 GMT -5
Why don't they have blood anymore? Risks of infection, i believe Bob Orton caused a scare once. Yeah, it was when Randy was feuding with Undertaker, and they had their Hell in a Cell match. Orton bled, and from what I heard, Taker never knew he had Hepatitis C. Needless to say after the fact when Taker found out, he was a tad on the pissed off side. Apparently Johnny Ace actually knew about it, when Orton tested positive in a WWE physical, yet he failed to tell Taker about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Jan 13, 2012 1:03:17 GMT -5
One of the matches I would've loved to see with blood is Edge vs Undertaker at SummerSlam 2008. Sure, we don't need people always bleeding like in the Attitude Era, or like Flair loves to do, but looking back, matches like Hell in a Cell or the Elimination Chamber don't seem as brutal without blood.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 13:28:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2012 1:12:40 GMT -5
Agreed. Hell in a Cell and the Elimination chamber matches sorta loses the brutality without blood.
|
|
Jesseversion1
Main Eventer
:)
Joined on: Aug 8, 2009 4:09:46 GMT -5
Posts: 3,909
|
Post by Jesseversion1 on Jan 13, 2012 1:22:28 GMT -5
HIAC and EC just are not the same without blood.
|
|
|
|
Post by Phantom on Jan 13, 2012 4:58:04 GMT -5
It should be up to the performer. If a wrestler wants to put a little cut on his forehead to add to a big match he should. If he doesnt want to thats ok too. Blood does add extra emotion to a match but its not needed. I believe blood/blading will happen again somewhere down the line but for now we will just have to go without.
|
|
|
|
Post by DgenerationX092 on Jan 13, 2012 6:29:04 GMT -5
Blood is not needed in Hell In A Cell matches to be honest. Example. One of my favorite Hell In A Cell matches. Well, when you counteract the use of blood with Tables, Ladders, Chairs, and Fire within the Hell in a Cell, yeah the lack of blood seems minimal. The combination of Scheduled HIAC Pay-Per-Views and No blood has made for very poor Hell in a Cell matches recently. Nothing to intensify the fueds. ------------------- Yes, I do miss blood. There's no denying it adds something special to matches, when used right. But gigging in general I feel is an important part of wrestling's history and should not be cast off. Going back to feud intensity, it takes away from whats supposed to be an intense feud, but no matter how deep the hatred goes or how hard someone gets hit, nobody out for another mans blood. Sorry if it sounds morbid, but back in the day, drawing blood is what made it personal. You  ing busted this guy open in front of the world, now this is getting real. But with the ban of gigging, its just like, "Meh, A win is enough for me. Maybe "injure" you by doing my finisher on the stage. A few years ago this was nothing, but now? You better look out, thats about 2 months on the shelf". |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 13:28:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2012 10:25:31 GMT -5
Blood is not needed in Hell In A Cell matches to be honest. Example. One of my favorite Hell In A Cell matches. this match only makes the case for blood in HIAC.all the wrong that edge inflicted on UT and he never bled-made no sense. the same spots before that had guys busted open didnt do the job here?nonsense. HIAC and the EC need blood and without them are watered down dead ends. now Im not advocating the use of blood all the time but for EC and HIAC its a nessescity.blood has helped create some of the greatest moments in wrestling and can be vital for producing drama in match. and while Im here the lack of blood wasnt the problem with HHH vs orton. Orton got "heat" by beating up the Mcmahons-he was loudly cheered for beating on Stephanie(no suprise,she is vile)and the other Mcmahons.the only person that wanted to see Orton get beat by HHH was HHH.then he turned up half assed and in one of the most ridiculous booking decisions ever put on a clinic during a revenge match.even blood with no DQ wouldnt have helped this atrocity. |
|
shenmue
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 30, 2007 10:12:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,730
|
Post by shenmue on Jan 13, 2012 15:16:15 GMT -5
The problem with no Blood is that the personal storyline with them hating each other seems unrealistic without blood, imagine HHH vs HBK feud in 2002-2004 without Blood, or HHH vs Mick Foley in 2000, or Taker vs HBK in 1997, or Austin vs HHH etc.
They wouldn't have been as memorable or as good if I'm being honest. Back in 1997-2006 when a hell in Cell, LMS or an I quit match was announced you knew the matches would be brutal and that blood would be shed.
I still enjoy the product but i am in favor of bring blood back for heated feuds.
|
|
WarMachine08
Superstar
Joined on: Jul 9, 2005 12:09:11 GMT -5
Posts: 756
|
Post by WarMachine08 on Jan 13, 2012 15:18:21 GMT -5
Blood is not needed in Hell In A Cell matches to be honest. Example. One of my favorite Hell In A Cell matches. That match was insane! One of my all time favorites. |
|
|
|
Post by DontHassleTheHoff on Jan 13, 2012 15:20:18 GMT -5
Risks of infection, i believe Bob Orton caused a scare once. Yeah, it was when Randy was feuding with Undertaker, and they had their Hell in a Cell match. Orton bled, and from what I heard, Taker never knew he had Hepatitis C. Needless to say after the fact when Taker found out, he was a tad on the pissed off side. Apparently Johnny Ace actually knew about it, when Orton tested positive in a WWE physical, yet he failed to tell Taker about it. Thanks, I knew it was during that angle but couldn't remember all the details! |
|
shenmue
Main Eventer
Joined on: Oct 30, 2007 10:12:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,730
|
Post by shenmue on Jan 13, 2012 15:21:13 GMT -5
Blood is not needed in Hell In A Cell matches to be honest. Example. One of my favorite Hell In A Cell matches. That match was insane! One of my all time favorites. It was a great match but the problem i have is the match isn't great because of the actual cell involvement, it could have just been a no holds barred match and had still been great with all the weapons used. |
|
|
|
Post by wabarrett on Jan 13, 2012 15:22:16 GMT -5
The day I found out that wrestlers bleed (mostly) by cutting themselves with a small razor was the day I stopped wanting to see blood in wrestling.
Besides, while blood can intensify a feud and can be used to show how brutal a match has been, it was so overused anyway. Anytime someone's head came off the steel steps - crimson mask. Anytime someone hit a cage wall - crimson mask. Anytime someone gets hit with a weapon - crimson mask. The sheer amount and frequency of blood was just as unrealistic, if not more, than the total lack of it in WWE today.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 16, 2024 13:28:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2012 16:30:56 GMT -5
the total lack of it is more unrealistic IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfinnomore on Jan 13, 2012 17:02:45 GMT -5
Foley barely bled in the HIAC match and thats arguably the most brutal match in WWE history. Blood isn't needed for brutality, bumps are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Wrestling on Jan 13, 2012 19:56:44 GMT -5
Foley barely bled in the HIAC match and thats arguably the most brutal match in WWE history. Blood isn't needed for brutality, bumps are. If I remember correctly, blood was coming from Foley's mouth on his match against Undertaker at King of the Ring 1998. Also, I do remember seeing him bleed on his match vs Triple H at No Way Out 2000. Not sure if he participated in some others, though. |
|
