Hello everyone, first real thread I am making on here so excuse me if I am nervous. But I saw something which I think can spark a debate. Since 2008, WWE turned to PG with the last TV14 PPV being the Great American Bash. A part of PG wrestling is the removal of blade-ing, or purposefully cutting yourself to force bloodshed. Even Batista got a large fine due to him blade-ing in a cage match on Raw. Ever since, groups of WWE fans are pining for bloodshed. But is it necessary? Something that blood offers from time to time is enhancement to a storyline. Some recent examples were Roman Reigns getting busted up, along with Triple H during their Wrestlemania feud, and the Hell in a Cell match between Undertaker and Brock Lesnar at Hell in a Cell. During those times, it was used to show the severity of the "blood feud" between the wrestlers. Even face of the WWE, John Cena in a recent interview with the Rolling Stone said he misses blood in WWE fights. But does it always mean something? Popular WWE Youtuber, Adam Blampied, stated his stance on "PG vs TV14" in an video a while back. Spoiler (Move your mouse to the spoiler area to reveal the content) Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler To summarize, he stated that blood, although once in a while wouldn't hurt, isn't necessary to use blood to make entertaining storylines or matches. This is a quick showing of two different sides, but I have to ask. Do you think blood has a place in WWE? Should they have more blood? Or should they keep the red stuff out of it?