Agree or Disagree: The Ministry of Darkness set the Standard for "Too Far" in Pro-Wrestling?

Despite the RAW's rating at the time, 16+ or whatever it was, they were publicly (and on a live show) performing sacrifices with wrestlers. An example is Gangrel, they attacked him to the point of unconsciousness, laid him out in front of a live audience, Undertaker would slit "his own wrist" for "blood" to drip into Gangrel, while they chant a voodoo ritual. They also sacrificed other wrestlers on the TX (Texas) Crucifix, they kidnapped Stephanie McMahon and attempted a 'blood wedding' (a wedding of darkness under the name of Satan).

This was all scripted, planned and approved by Vince himself, who was later revealed to be the Higher Power (a role that Satan would've fitted perfectly...). What happens in matches, weapons, fire, etc, is planned by the wrestlers as they go on and is as surprising to us as the head writers of WWE, or Vince McMahon.

So, in pro-wrestling, do you think the Ministry of Darkness set the standard for too far? Do you think that they weren't that controversial?

Why?

Update:

No I didn't, you idiot, I described what the Ministry did. I described how their actions were different to in-ring actions. I gave an example of how it could be the standard for too far, but I never said why it was or wasn't the standard.

Actually read the whole thing next time, a**hole, it's because of people like you that questions get terrible answers.

Update 2:

Acadx: Clearly you're failing to understand the question. Even if LoD did set the standard 'too far' before MoD, the MoD still made a new standard that was too far. It therefore becomes "the standard of too far" if it is in fact the new standard, that's what I'm asking you guys. Is it the standard of 'too far'?

Update 3:

Oh... my... God...

Da King: Yes, BEFORE that! That was BEFORE. Then the Ministry also started voodoo rituals and sacrificing wrestlers for souls and cutting wrists for blood.

What is wrong with you people!?

Update 4:

Charlie: Why you think Undertaker sucks.

But you actually did answer the question. To paraphrase it, you basically think what we see/hear shouldn't be limited because of some people's double standards or, like you said, self perception (that they're better).

Thank you... for being 1 of 2 out of 5 people to actually answer.

Update 5:

Charlie: I thought I put this in after the first sentence. - It is an opinion that Undertaker sucks or Undertaker doesn't, but that's not the point.

Personally, I believe that blood, nudity, ritual and all that are real issues that people face... maybe not rituals, but if it's the appropriate rating (Adult's Only) why not put it in?

Update 6:

Encyclopedia: All true points, but the thing is the Ministry's actions haven't been duplicated or rehashed, and it made the 'new standard'. An example for a different subject. Goldeneye 007 on the Nintendo 64 was the standard for First Person Shooter games, especially multiplayer. If a game wasn't equal or greater than that it wasn't worth getting, but then Halo raised the standard in 2002 or so. It's like Goldeneye is Freddie Blassie's biting, then Halo is the Abdullah the Butcher, then you continue with the updated multiplayer game and the next standard in the game. In the end, after a break of either not having new standard's set, or similar level of actions happening eventually something surpasses the previous standard.

8 Answers

Relevance
  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Well LOD looks like you need a history lesson and I am happy to give one with my old brain and wrestling knowledge:

    First of all, Classy Freddie Blassie would use his sharp as a knife teeth to draw blood from wrestlers which was real edgy for the 50's, 60's and early 70's, as hookers ( a wrestling term for mat grapplers and versatile submission men and pinning men ) and scientific grappling was what was the style of the time period for American wrestling. Guys like Blassie and Graham and the flamboyant Buddy Rose really stuck out and influenced future legends like Hogan (Graham) Flair (Rose and Graham,), Heenan (Blassie) and Rock (promo work of Graham)

    The next instance of probably going "too far" in wrestling and probably strongest case could be set back to Abdulah the Butcher, the original hardocre Sudan maniac who I have written about in that dollar bill question of yours before. This man caused bloody havoc never seen before and if you fought Abbie, you were gonna get in a bloodbath. The great Lou Thez once was asked about Abbie's talents and Thez simply said "he bleeds" and that is exactly what the Butcher did. Abbie would chop the neck, stiff throw you with judo, hit you with broken glass, use foreign objects ( a rarity during the scientific grappling time period and later powerhouse and flamboyant 70's), brawl with his huge taped fists, and the man would even poke a freakin fork into your cuts just to make your wounds infected. The man bladed so much that he has permanant scars on his head. His matches with the Funks, the original Sheik, much later Cactus Jack (Jack's influence) and fellow brawling and hardcore pioneer Bruiser Brody all could be called going to far especially considering how conservative the world (and world of wrestling) was in the 60's and 70's and Abbie's style was really hardcore even for the 80's throughout as Abbie has wrestled for half a century producing bloodbaths. The man was the original "king of hardcore" back when Terry Funk still wrestled that brawling/somewhat technical texas style, Bruiser just brawled and Hansen brawled and WAY before Sabu, Foley, , Sandman, most recently Necro Butcher and other "harcore icons". I even remember in 1978 in a hotel watching Abbie in the midatlantic NWA watching Abdulah the Butcher beat a guy so bad that his skin was actually hanging off his face. Abbie set precendents never seen and inspired many while being a huge draw to whatever territory he fealt like terrorizing!

    Fast foward in prominance 10 years and the next infamous example of going "too far" is when Hase and Muta faced off in Japan where they wore literal crimson masks of blood covered from head to toe in it and created the "Muta Scale", a scale rating blood in a match. Also, the king of the deathmatches in Japan were extremely brutal and perhaps went too far in the 80's and this was before the MOD. Also in the 80's, the King and Kerry Von Erich had a match so bloody that it was stopped. Finally in 81, Sarge and a technical wrestler named Pat Patterson had an alley brawl match where both men are bleeding like a stuffed pig that could've been the real standard to bleed for a match where the match went so far Slaughter was legitamately stumbling because of bloodloss. This even made ME a little squeemish when I saw this in the day!

    A little promotion in 1991 called ECW broke off from NWA and in 1994 changed wrestling by going too far and creating an attitude era that would change wrestling forever. Here before the Ministry, you had barbwire matches, lesbian angles, a mock cruicifixtion, a kid being brainwashed, Bubba Ray calling black people in the audience ******* and giving sexual slurs to the women, men falling off scaffolds, and other storylines and matches considered too far. ECW did set standards though, as Sandman would be the basis for Stone Cold, ECW started the attitude era in my book, ECW would pave the way for CZW and other hardcore indies as ECW was the original "Indy king" before it got syndication and a tv deal, and of course WCW and later would steal the majority of technical wrestlers ECW brought in to America like Dean Malenko, Eddie Guerrero and Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Tazz and other technitians. (Though Tazz wasn't just a technitian)

    Of course, I could write an entire 4 pages on Mick Foley stunts that could be considered too far, but instead I will just briefly state that before the Ministry of Darkness, Foley arguably took some bumps too far.

    Conclusion: Wrestlers have taken things "too far" decades before the Ministry of Darkness. Now do I think that the Ministry took things "too far"? yes considering they sacrificed people and had a satnic cult thing going and even Taker himself considers this the "dark low point" in his career which he is not proud of.

  • STEVE
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    I agree that it did, because they were dealing with religion. Christianity is the predominant religion in the US and the Ministry were acting out Satanic rituals. Papa Shango did voodoo too (he even had people drink that black liquid from the skull he carried around), but he never incorporated the devil or spoke of a higher power (he was more of a witch doctor). Religion is a touchy subject to a lot of people...

    But the "too far" standard has since been replaced with the Katie Vick/Necrophilia thing. When Triple H raped that blow up doll, the WWE immediately dropped the angle and act as if it never happened. The Ministry angle went on for quite a while and there's wasn't any one action that forced the angle to grind to a halt.

  • I'm not exactly answering the question because I feel like it would turn into a rant on why The Undertaker sucks, but please read my answer anyways.

    For me, there is no such thing as "too far." People who think someone goes "too far" are just weak minded individuals. Maybe its because of where I grew up, how I was raised, I'm not sure, but I can really take anything. I think people who get upset over things that happen on TV, or get offended by racist/sexist comments are people who feel like they are better than other people. They feel like they shouldn't be "subjected" to seeing or hearing the things that do offend them. You might know about me in chats, I'm pretty much uncensored, and I really don't care who I piss off or who I offend. The fact is that people who freak out over things that happen on television need to get the sand out of their vaginas, and stop thinking that what happens on TV really matters. Too far, no, more like too stupid.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    I have to think the standard bearer of "too far" was when The One Man Gang turned into Akeem.Mostly because it was weak,though.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    It's too far for children like you, right?

    Source(s): Fact
  • 9 years ago

    Nooooo.... Before that Raven crucified Sandman and that was "Too Far" before this.

    EDIT: What's wrong with us! Were trying to help you and you say that! I'm officialy done with this question and you.

    Source(s): >x<X>x< We want Triple X!
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    It seems like you answered your own question. Good job.

  • 9 years ago

    no

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.