We’re a bit short-staffed in the NZPWI locker room this week, with Kirsty off on a well-deserved holiday while Simon was last seen being chased down Lambton Quay by a horde of enraged yet remarkably well dressed Crowded House fans.  But the remainder of the G5 crew are on board to share our thoughts blood, or the absence of blood, in professional wrestling.

We also take a look at Rey Mysterio’s second run with a World title, discuss who Kane should focus on next in his quest for vengeance, and ponder who may be RAW’s mysterious General Manager.  And we consider if WWE Superstars is WWE’s hidden gem or just a waste of air time.

Welcome back for another edition of Gimme 5.

1) David Dunn asked "do we need blood?" What are your thoughts on the place of bleeding in pro-wrestling?

Matt:
Coming from someone who has bled pints and pints in the course of wrestling, I am a firm believer that bleeding at the right time, place and under the right circumstances (grudge match payoffs or hardcore gimmick matches) is as much a part of pro wrestling as wristlocks and lycra. Nothing screams to the audience "I am hurt" more than a face full of claret.

Scott:
I agree where David ended up with his blog. There's been too much blood in pro-wrestling, so much so it lost its impact for a while, but now the WWE has headed to far in the other direction. It's a contact sport, a blood-sport (if you will). If Vince McMahon really wants to drink from all the other ‘sports-entertainments' milkshakes he has to understand that there will be blood. Why is UFC ever-growing in popularity? Why do the more icky moments in Survivor always get the best ratings? Because, when things really matter, nothing sells a story like someone losing some blood at an appropriate moment. Bring it back, Vince. Incorporate it into the meta-story, rather than just trying to tell us that all that flows through the veins of your performers are pink fluffy bunnies.

David:
As the guy responsible, I'll direct everyone to my blog if you're interested in reading 3000 words on the matter. To summarise though, I'm fine with blood being removed from wrestling, as long as matches aren't going to be stopped and started at will every time someone gets a small cut.

Dion:
I think it absolutely has its place, so long as it's part of good storytelling and not just for the hell of it. I'm not a fan of matches being stopped for a quick clean up, though.

Luke:
Well David pretty much nailed it all on the head in his piece he wrote. I'm against them banning the blade job as it is a prop in what will make a match go from excellent to legendary. Instead of banning blood, they could have cut down on the amounts of blood and blade jobs, saving it only for matches that it will make a difference in. It also takes away an aspect of reality. For instance, if Triple H nailed Sheamus (closed fist over the end of the hammer) with his sledgehammer and Sheamus doesn't bleed, then how come Triple H did the same thing two years ago and made his opponents bleed. Is his sledgehammer weaker now?

2) Rey Mysterio is back at the top of the SmackDown totem pole. What do you think of the 619 holding the World Heavyweight Championship? What would you like to see from Mysterio's second run with the belt?

Matt:
I am not a fan of Rey holding the belt. His first win had a lot of impact and was proof that the underdog does win on occasion. But he is a cruiserweight first and foremost (no matter how much muscle he packs on his little bones) and the WWE would be better served if he spent less time messing with the big boys, and more time putting over/raising the bar for the smaller guys. Look to TNA's X-Division and see how it's done!

Scott:
If anything speaks of WWE's perception of the SmackDown main-event being a bit light in the absence of Undertaker it's the decision to put the belt back on Rey. But it's unnecessary; Rey will bring ratings with or without the belt. They should've kept the belt on Swagger, passed it to Punk, even given Kane a run. Should've kept exploring with the brand, rather than just panicking back to a "OMG, we need a name superstar to hold the belt!" stance.

But, still, I've always wanted to see Mysterio get a second run with the title. I wish the circumstances were otherwise, but nonetheless I hope this will be a good run, rather than that awful sympathy-run he got in the wake of Eddie's death. He is a star, and a top performer, and he deserves one good run before he disappears for a while to let those knees heal.

David:
I was surprised to see Rey win at Fatal 4-Way considering he wasn't even originally going to be in the title match. Now that he's the reigning World Heavyweight Champion I'm all for Rey Mysterio remaining champion for as long as he can, at least until SummerSlam. Hopefully CM Punk can reignite his feud with Mysterio now that there's a title in the mix too. I think those two could produce some amazing pay-per-view main events if given the chance.

Dion:
I think Mysterio's first run is largely seen as a rub he received from his friendship with Eddie - rightly or wrongly, that just seems to be popular opinion. I hope with this run, he's able to hold on to the title for quite some time, and write his history as a legitimate and well remembered World Heavyweight Champion.

Luke:
I am hoping that his run with the WHC will be better this time around than it was back in 2006. With the PG era in full force, Rey is perfect to play the kids choice for SmackDown. He's colourful, wears a mask, charismatic and a great wrestler. He deserves another run with the championship that isn't surrounded by the death of Eddie Guerrero. I hope that we see some good work and storylines that don't run parallel to the John Cena kid-friendly reigns on RAW. What I don't want to see is him get squashed by every big man like last time.

3) CM Punk is apparently innocent of leaving The Undertaker in a ‘vegetative state.' Who do you think Kane should focus his attention on next?

Matt:
Himself! Oops...sorry to spoilsport a great angle, but it's so damned obvious! Easter Bunny and Santa don't exist too. And the woman at the end of "The Crying Game" is in fact a man.

Should make for an interesting angle leading to WrestleMania though? I always liked Kane vs. Taker clashes. Tip to Vince? Sign Abyss and make him a third brother. Taker vs. Kane vs. Abyss would blow my hair back!

Scott:
Michelle McCool.

David:
It's no fun to blame Kane for everything, I don't want another May 19th-style freak-out from the Big Red Machine if it turns out he was responsible. I still say it was CM Punk's ally, Luke Gallows, who did it. What better way to avenge his first loss (Gallows, as Festus, tapped out to Hell's Gate) than to show Undertaker what it's like to be stuck in a vegetative state?

Dion:
Jack Swagger. I think he and Kane could put on some tremendous matches. And let's face it, everyone wants to see Swagger put in his place, right?

Luke:
I think that Kane should focus his attention on The Big Show. The Big Show and The Undertaker have always butted heads in the past, usually with The Big Show winning the contest. Back in 1999, Show put Undertaker into a vegetative state by Choke Slamming him through the ring. In 2002, he put Undertaker into a vegetative state by throwing him off the SmackDown stage. Sure, Big Show maybe the good guy here but perhaps this was a way to get Taker out of the spotlight.

4) Who do you think is the mysterious new General Manager of RAW, communicating his or her directives to Michael Cole by email?

Matt:
For a while I thought it might be Triple H in an angle designed to highlight his usurping of his father in law and taking over the family business. But Trips is better in the ring than on the sidelines, and an angle like this lends itself to a retiree or non wrestler.

Ruling out the remaining McMahons (Shane gone...Steph tied up in creative, Linda in politics)...how about Shawn Michaels? I know he said he'd never return, but he's still over and a man has to pay his bills.

Scott:
I don't know, and don't really care to tell the truth. What I do care about is that for the first time in years they're running a storyline on RAW that makes me want to tune in next week. Bravo, WWE, bravo.

But if you're twisting my arm I suspect... Michelle McCool. She's got stroke backstage, I hear.

David:
I have no idea, so I'm not basing this on anything in the slightest, but I kind of hope it's JR. He's been gone from our screens for a while and seeing as it doesn't look like he'll be sliding back into the role of commentator when/if he returns, why not have a crack at running RAW?

Dion:
To be fair, I don't think WWE probably even knows at this stage! I'm hoping it's JR.

Luke:
I think that the new General Manager of RAW is....Michael Cole! Since NXT, Michael Cole's character is slowly evolving into an internet hating heel - perfect for the role of General Manager. If not, I think as we head into SummerSlam we may find out more clues on who the GM really is.

5) WWE Superstars: yes or no? Does the show fill a useful place in WWE programming, or does it need to exist at all?

Matt:
I don't mind the main events, and quite enjoy the work ethic of those who are less over and who are trying to impress the powers that be in order to get back on a bigger brand. That said, a return to the old WWF Superstars format would be cool too...bring in jobbers and just letting them get squashed. At least it is a good way to learn everyone's signature moves and finishers?

Scott:
Yes! With such huge rosters on RAW and SmackDown after ECW folded, not to mention the intake of eight (or is that seven, or six?) NXT talent to RAW, Superstars has become vital viewing simply by the efforts those well down the storyline pecking order take to impress and be noticed. And it's all in the ring, which makes that one hour show a stand-out in WWE programming. True, they use a lot of the running time to promote pay-per-views and main storylines, but each week there are two or three matches that are just genuinely great matches, occurring for no other reason than for allowing some people to get in the ring and showcase their characters and their moves in the only environment that matters at the end of the day in professional wrestling.

David:
Yes. Superstars is a long way off being the show it was when it first came to our screens, but now it's arguably turned into something better: the most wrestling-heavy of WWE's shows, providing a safe place for the guys that get lost in amongst the bigger names of RAW and SmackDown to show their stuff. Any show that features Chris Masters is a good one in my book!

Dion:
Yes. It's the best wrestling show on television.

Luke:
Yes. It is good to have a program with the lower to mid card talents on weekly and the show is basically a combined Heat/Velocity of today. I think its gap filler and the new "ECW" without any storylines worth caring about though we have seen some great matches on Superstars.