The v2 wrestling brain of the year - fight 5 - round 1

Please vote for your favourite response to the question at hand. The judging will be open until Tuesday and further rounds will be published as and when.

To avoid bias, the contenders are not revealed.

Should WWE remain PG going forward?

____________________________________________________________________________
Contender 1

Brock Lesnar and Paul Heyman are the best things in WWE now and one of the best since the Attitude Era.

CM Punk's title reign was some of the best individual work since the Attitude Era.

Daniel Bryan was getting the most positive crowd reactions going into Wrestlemania than anyone since the Attitude Era.

None of the above statements are in anyway affected by the TV rating of WWE. The reason for all three is that they are excellent wrestlers who one way or another have developed a character that the majority of fans feel passionately about.
Fans look back on the Attitude Era with a great fondness. But the reason for that isn't that there was blood, boobs and swear words - it was because of the wrestlers and environment in which wrestling found itself.

The Attitude Era was so successful due to two companies pushing each other to try new things, to push new talent and to try and revolutionise wrestling. This one up manship led to some of the most captivating feuds, moments and matches in wrestling history and due to the success of ECW they were also some of the most brutal and crude. Leading to an association between 'mature content' and quality.

Even though it was still not PG, the Ruthless Aggression era is not spoken about in the same way as the Attidude era.

Yes, towards the late 2000s things weren't great, a lack of new main event talent was starting to take it's toll as were the tragic events that would befall roster members. But the Attitude Era served up some awful moments too - anyone for a Hell in a Kennel match?

The reason for the lack of appreciation is that the bubble in which wrestling existed until the demise of WCW was gone. Some of the best wrestlers of the last 25 years were putting on great matches, but the buzz around the industry - and the competition which kept WWE on their toes - was gone.

Getting rid of PG era wouldn't bring back great television. The problems with the product would still be there, just paper over with a generous helping of boobs, swearwords and blood. Whilst this would make things feel fresh in the short term, it isn't what wrestling needs to improve.

It needs to take risks, be willing to try new things and to let the real talent pick up the ball and run with it. Bryan, Punk and Lesnar prove that wrestlers can still connect with the crowd in a PG era...if WWE take a chance and let the next generation have that opportunity, then the clamour for an end to PG will soon subside. ____________________________________________________________________________
Contender 2

‘Should’ WWE remain PG going forward? ‘Should’ they in my opinion or ‘should’ they from a business perspective? Well I’ve only got 500 words and I’ve already used 28 of them so I’ll answer it from a personal opinion.

Simply put – Yes, they should.

WWE have proved that they can maintain the interest from all demographics with the current product. As much as the IWC may not like the PG era we sure to hell still tune in and watch the damn thing. They’ve also proven that the product can remain edgy in this era and as long as you have guys like Brock Lesnar who bring an approach of legitimacy then the older audience will be satisfied enough to carry on watching. I hate this opinion that WWE is aimed at kids. Its not. It’s aimed at families, and if smark fans cant accept that blood and foul language doesn’t make a wrestling show then that’s their problem they just need to get over. When you see Wrestlemania 30 taking over 1 million buys and when you see WWE launching their own network (albeit not an immediate financial success) you can’t help but applaud them as a business for being massively successful, so why would they want to change anything? Arenas are sold out, ratings are steady, PPV buys are high, merchandise sales are strong. So why change? If you want blood go watch The Walking Dead. Wrestling, funnily enough is about ‘wrestling’, storytelling and making the audience invest in a story and you sure to hell don’t need to move away from PG to do that. In the 80s and early 90s I watched some of the best angles and stories I’ve ever seen and that didn’t need blood and violence. Similarly – some of the best movies I’ve seen aren’t 15 or 18 rated. Monsters Inc is a legendary film is it not?

What’s the saying – You either adapt or you perish? And I think most of us will have to learn to adapt before the guy who created that quote perishes.
____________________________________________________________________________

Vote for your favourite above and don't forget to vote in round one and two as well -

How can wrestling break the mainstream again? - https://www.606v2.com/t55539-the-v2-wrestling-brain-of-the-year-fight-one-round-1
Would Bray Wyatt defeating the streak have benefited WWE more in the long term? https://www.606v2.com/t55549-the-v2-wrestling-brain-of-the-year-fight-2-round-1
The best wrestler still active today to have not won the top belt is….- https://www.606v2.com/t55573-the-v2-wrestling-brain-of-the-year-fight-3-round-1
Would the death of TNA be a good thing? - https://www.606v2.com/t55588-the-v2-wrestling-brain-of-the-year-fight-4-round-1

I've always thought that if used sparingly enough that a bit of blood can take a match from 10 to 11. Matches like HiaC or a Street Fight seem tame now in comparison, so for me they dont seem like a big deal anymore. I feel that if its used once or twice a year it can help elevate a feud but keep it PG. Kids see worse in video games and movies all the time. And the fact you can make them bleed in the WWE games seems a bit odd if they dont in real life.

That said, some of the best material has come while under a PG rating. Went for option 1. Seemed a bit more diplomatic whereas option 2 came across as someone really peed off about it.

Contender 2 seems like an angry guy.

I'd vote for 1.

The winner of Round 5 by a 79% to 21% vote is Enforcer! Hard luck to Mr H who leaves us at this stage of the competition.

Stupid game, I didn't want to play anyway!