The WWE no blood policy has been in effect for a few years now and with the upcoming TLC event on the horizon I have come to question whether or not there is a place for weapons matches in a bloodless WWE. Blood has been a part of professional wrestling since the sport’s inception. Classic images of Ric Flair’s crimson mask and Steve Austin passing out in a pool of blood to Bret Hart’s sharpshooter will forever be ingrained in the minds of wrestling fans.
[adinserter block=”1″]Blood has been used in wrestling as a means of eliciting strong emotional reactions as well as protecting the believability of the match. There’s nothing that can turn up the heat on a feud quite like a heel pummeling a babyface and leaving him a bloody mess in the ring. Blood is an amazing tool that be utilized by bookers to reach new heights of emotion in angles, but you do not necessarily need blood to have an intense feud. The WWE can still create compelling storylines without blood, but one thing they cannot do is make a bloodless weapons match believable.
At the TLC event we are guaranteed to see all sorts of carnage delivered by chair and ladder wielding wrestlers, but no matter how many times someone has their face smashed into steel we will see no blood. This is a problem. It seems that some within the WWE have forgotten that wrestling has to maintain a degree of believability. If a competitor is thrown headfirst into a chair or crushed with a ladder he has to be bleed or the match loses its credibility. A weapon becomes less and less threatening each time you see it used without the consequence of bleeding.
The match that I believe has suffered the most due to the no blood policy is the Hell in a Cell match. The WWE is fooling themselves if they believe that they can seriously promote a Hell in a Cell match without blood. When a man has his face dragged across a steel fence he has to bleed! There is no getting around this. The Hell in a Cell was once the most menacing structure in the WWE. The match was used as the blow off to only the most intense of feuds. The cell has given us some classic matches and unforgettable moments, but sadly it has been reduced to a whimpering shell of its former self. With the no blood policy in effect, Hell in a Cell competitors are forced to essentially ignore the fact that they are surrounded by a dangerous weapon. This creates an awkward scene as the men in the ring try to live up to the Hell in a Cell name without taking the match to its logical conclusion of a brutal and bloody fight.
If the WWE is set on continuing with its no blood policy, then they should seriously consider doing away with hardcore weapons matches. Introducing weapons and caged walls to bloodless wrestling matches will only create an awkward situation wherein the wrestlers will be severely handicap as to how they can believably utilize the in ring environment.
[adinserter block=”2″]I know that the WWE wants to present a kid friendly product, but is it really a good idea to teach children that they can hit their friends with ladders and no one will get cut? At the very least a bloodless WWE should stop promoting events like Extreme Rules, Hell in the Hell, or TLC which guarantee that these weapons matches must occur.
[amazon_link id=”B00JHH1YAW” target=”_blank” container=”” container_class=”” ]WWE The Paul Heyman Story[/amazon_link]