KOTR Round 1 6th Matchup.

Ok here we go this is the 6th matchup on the card.

Below will be the answers from PM's i got off each person and i wan't you to use the poll's to vote for your favourite, i have set the poll to last 1 day.

The question i asked was:

Do you think blood is needed in Wrestling? (Blading etc)

Person A.

I don’t think there is any doubt that blood has contributed to some memorable moments in wrestling. The image of Steve Austin with blood dripping down his face as he battled to escape the Sharpshooter at Wrestlemania 13 is one of the most iconic in wrestling history. Dusty Rhodes, Ric Flair, Terry Funk, Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels and Triple H, amongst others, have all also added great drama to matches over the years with a timely bladejob.

However, I do not believe that blood is needed in wrestling. The operative word here is “needed”. Yes, it can add to a match or angle, but there have been plenty of great and dramatic matches and angles that did not involve blood. Wrestling promotions have succeeded without using blading and others have failed despite using it. I think there are a multitude of factors which are more important to a wrestling promotion’s success than blood, and if those factors are in place it isn’t necessary.

The vast majority of the time you see a wrestler blade, it is done as a shortcut, and is soon forgotten. For every memorable image of a bloody wrestler, there are a thousand times that a bladejob was forgotten the next morning. A talented wrestler or booker doesn’t need to use blood to tell a story. Indeed Ric Flair, a wrestler who never needed to take a shortcut in his career, seems almost addicted to blading. When it gets to the point that wrestlers cut themselves open seemingly for their own satisfaction, it not only desensitises fans but it becomes a parody and reinforces negative stereotypes of wrestling. Given also that there is great stigma attached to blading by the “outside world” – not just the health dangers but also in that cutting oneself to entertain people is quite a bizarre and archaic thing to do, when you think about it! – I also think that wrestling promotions looking for mainstream acceptance would be quite sensible to avoid it completely.

In concluding, I think that blood can add drama to a wrestling performance, but only when used on very special occasions. If I had to write a list of the things that wrestling “needs”, it wouldn’t be on it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Person B.

Do I think blood is needed in wrestling? In a word, no. Blood was often used to create a brutal, hardcore feel to a match and to help put over an element of visible punishment to the wrestler on the receiving end. However I don’t believe blood is needed to give a match that brutal feel, with Triple H vs The Undertaker at Wrestlemania a prime recent example of this. Wrestlers can take crazy bumps and hit high spots, and pairing that with the aggressor's ability to show intensity and sell their agression together with the recipients ability to sell the punishment and their injuries, they can get across to the audience that 'brutal' feel to a match without the need for blood. Its all about storytelling in the ring and if you can connect to the audience in a way that Hunter and Taker did, it just shows that you don’t need blood to have a 'hardcore' match.

Ok, so blood can be effective and make someone look bad@$$, Steve Austin passing out at Mania 13 is proof of this, and in the period when the Attitude Era began it was a whole new shocking thing to see these guys on TV bleeding. It was fresh and never seen before so it was bound to capture the attention of viewers. However it got to the point where it happened all too often and it lost its edge. So whilst it was an exciting new concept at the time, for me it was the right decision to stop blading in the WWE.

In a nutshell my feeling is that its unnecessary and a cheap way out to sell a match as being hardcore. The guys in the ring should make more effort to create chemistry and use their ability to sell in order to give matches that brutal edge.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok so just to remind you, you can vote on the following guidelines:

1). You enjoyed reading the reply.
2). You thought the argument was explained thoroughly
3). You just liked the reply!
4). You thought it was informative and well written.

Oh and please try not to vote for yourselves!

Let the voting commence!

Tough, very tough. Poster B for me as i didn't quite agree that Poster A believed it was a shortcut? A shortcut to what? Waiting for someone to bash you over the head repeatedly?

I think this comes down to what your opinion is on the matter, irrespective of how well written it is.

I went for A, although both made very good points.

Poster B for me. I think his arguement was more succint and I agreed with his overall point, even though I didn't agree with his anaylsis of the HHH-taker match.

both good points but for me A was the better piece of writing

I agree, both made good points, but I agreed more with Poster A.

Both quality and like how both brought up Austin v Bret, a true iconic image.

It was very close but I just preferred the flow of the first one, I felt myself more drawn into it and wanted to carry on reading that more.

In concluding, I think that blood can add drama to a wrestling performance, but only when used on very special occasions.

^ ^^^

that's the main reason i went for A it needs to be used sparingly not everytime

I opted for A, it grabbed me more than the second, but both were good!

In concluding, I think that blood can add drama to a wrestling performance, but only when used on very special occasions.

that in a nutshell

A for me... Just well written & a bit more concise & to the point... Who's supplying the topics they've been pretty weak so far

I disagree entirely on the topics used so far, they're ones that are all known to everyone who has an interest in wrestling and therefore open it up to everyone being able to judge accordingly.

Hero wrote:I disagree entirely on the topics used so far, they're ones that are all known to everyone who has an interest in wrestling and therefore open it up to everyone being able to judge accordingly.

Well I've not really been following this too much but everyone I've looked at Person A & Person B have practically put the same answer.... If that's not the sign of a poor question I don't know what is??

So what would you put forward as topics to suggest?

How about this one.....

Apart from Alberto Del Rio...Who will be the next 3 superstars currently without a world title reign in the WWE to become Heavyweight Champion (WWE or World Heavyweight). Please explain your reason why...

If you get 3 identical answers I'll **** Mae Young

You realize we can rig this just so you have to diddle Mae Young?!

I think its fair to say Poster A has this one in the bag

I don't think she'd be able to take me anyway

To be honest Brady I think Miky's questions are better in that the replies have to be opinion-based. Your example above is basically asking for predictions. If the question was "who should be the next 3 world champions" fair enough, although even that is a stretch, as there's no timeframe on it; who's to say that the third of those champions won't be in a year or two years' time, and how do we know who will be hot then, who will improve and who will go downhill?

For example the three most recent "new" WWE world champions were Jack Swagger, The Miz and Christian, if I'm not mistaken. The last one before that was Sheamus in late 2009 (I might be wrong here). If you'd asked the question after Sheamus won the belt, people would have had to look ahead 17 months for the answers. And I bet all of them would have put Kofi Kingston's name in there somewhere! Maybe even Ted Dibiase...

All I'm saying is it's pretty much impossible to predict, and even a prediction that seems great now may seem ridiculous in a few months' time (and what happens if both posters' predictions turn out to be wrong?!). Miky's questions ask for someone to give an opinion and then explain it. If they give the same answer, like I said on a previous thread, it makes it more interesting for me because you really have to read closely and choose who gave the better account of themselves. Also, sometimes certain answers are more obvious than others. If Miky asked who the greatest of all time is, and one of the posters says Kevin Nash just to be different, they will get battered!

Brady12 wrote:I don't think she'd be able to take me anyway

I think she could take an articulated lorry so you'll probably be ok

Well played H. Post-match handshake and hug. I'll turn my back on you now and celebrate with my 16 fans. Please don't hit me with that steel chair I foolishly left lying around.

Beer, re the shortcut question, I meant a shortcut to getting a reaction from the fans, ie it's easier to blade than to put on a great wrestling clinic.

I'm not too sure about the reveal either? We'll know roughly who are contesting the later rounds & certainly be aware of the finalists

I agree with this Brady. When it comes to the final, people will probabl know the different styles of the two competitors. Then it may turn into a popularity contest.

I know that's a problem, but people will not know whos reply is what because i simply won't tell them even though they are aware who is in the final.

I agree with Brady on this one.

Maybe after the first round it could be totally anonymous and then once the final is over it could be revealed who beat who along the way?

Your call though Miky, you're the boss.

Styles of writing, Miky.

I'm not sure, that's the trouble.

I think your idea is probably best to be fair Crippled. The thing is, people will know when they are in the next round etc when they get PM's from me but no-one else will.

Yeah, the people who are through will know who they are, but nobody else knows.

Congratulations crips, a worthy victor, my answer was a bit of a rush job but no excuses, the better man won. Now i hope your question in the next round is 'Is the use of homophobic remarks in promos bad taste by the WWE'. ;-)

Anyway in all it's been decent this so far. Unlucky Mr H I had you as a shoe in for a semi birth although Crips was my pre-tourney favourite

Cheers mate. I couldnt of asked for an easier first round match really could i!

If the next question is about homophobia, chair shots or drug use, I might just be better off answering "kanes mask".

Thanks for the support Brady!

I’d have to see Crips as odds on favourite, him v me in the next round would be a white wash.

Well if it falls on a weekend it'll definitely be a white wash as I don't work weekends and can't get on a computer!

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:Well if it falls on a weekend it'll definitely be a white wash as I don't work weekends and can't get on a computer!

Well i've actually been very flexible and allowed people to send repies after the 24 hours. One guy didn't reply for quite a few days so thats where Mr H came in.

Where's the next matchup Milkman?

Still waiting on some replies, got a few replies but the opponent in each has not replied as of yet.

Don't worry, just sit tight mate!

i want my question