Programming Kane With Mark Henry, Consolidating World Titles, WWE YouTube vs. WWE Network, Unprotected Chair Shots

Is Kane going to be programmed with Mark Henry - after all, it was Henry that "injured" Kane 6 months ago?

I can confirm there was a preliminary plan to program Kane with Mark Henry after Kane's feud with John Cena. I don't know if WWE wanted to save it for Wrestlemania XXVIII but that's what the timetable suggested. However, the feud is in doubt because Mark Henry is currently injured. He has been working through a groin injury that cost him the World Heavyweight Championship (he was opposed to dropping it at WWE TLC) and then hurt his knee. The reason why WWE didn't program Kane with Henry upon his return is they wanted to finish out Big Show vs. Henry because so much time and resources had been spent on it and they wanted to give Cena something to do before Wrestlemania while keeping Kane in the main event at the same time.

With less big names in WWE wouldn't it make more sense to eliminate one of the world titles and just go back to one brand?

Completely nixing the brand extension and consolidating the world titles would not be a good move. There will be fewer opportunities to develop new stars and it would be counter to WWE's strategy of creating competition within itself. The people that say they want to see the brand extension end and the titles consolidated are the same people sick of John Cena. Shrinking the main event scene in WWE is going to mean more of guys like Cena, Randy Orton, CM Punk and less of guys like Daniel Bryan. I like the approach WWE has taken with Raw being a "Supershow" and Smackdown being it's only brand. It provides an opportunity to get talent from both brands on the flagship show while at the same time allowing for opportunities for further talent development.

What is the difference between the WWE Network and the company's new YouTube programming?

WWE's nine (technically eight) new YouTube shows are basically a trial run for new WWE Network original programming as they show the company's ability to produce a wide array of cheap original programming. The difference is going to be that the WWE Network will be a television network whereas their YouTube channel is obviously exclusive to the Internet. Let me take this opportunity to also state I feel WWE's new YouTube programming is taking a good idea and over doing it. Someone needs to stress quality over quantity. Zack Ryder had a great idea that got him over but his show blew up because it was entertaining, not because it was a wrestler in front of a camera. He wasn't the first to have success with an online show either, remember the stuff The Miz and John Morrison did through WWE? Ryder's case is original because he was a nobody and forced the company to pay attention to him but he's a rare case and I think it had more to do with his natural charisma and talent than anything else.

Is the banning of chairs to the head more symbolic than effective? They haven't banned kicks and GTS's or DDT's. The wrestlers can't protect themselves from that every time, especially not with the way Dolph Ziggler sells the GTS.

Unprotected chair shots to the head are much riskier and much more dangerous than a kick, GTS or DDT. There is absolutely no reason for any organization to allow them especially with all that is known about concussions and their effects on the human brain. There are ways to sell all of the maneuvers you mentioned that can be protected. A chair shot doesn't offer that.

To submit your question for our next installment of Ask WNW, click here.

Remember questions with proper spelling and grammar receive top priority and stand the best chance of getting answered. The next installment of Ask WNW will run on Thursday, February 9, 2012.

Check out the Ask WNW archive at this link.

Submit questions to: [email protected]!

  • The Cowboy

    To extend Richard's point on the last question, there remain several creative ways to utilize chairs as weapons (Pillmanizing, shots to the back, prods to the abdomen or knees) which sell them as being just as vicious without involving anywhere near the amount of risk that is commonplace with even a mitigated ("hands-up") shot to the head.

    Even discounting the overwhelmingly obvious risk of brain damage, there are too many other risks involved – accidental shots with the side of the chair, badly lined up shots (the Anderson-in-TNA fiasco comes to mind) – to warrant that chapter ever being re-opened in pro wrestling.

    There are several reasons why WWE programming is less entertaining than it was a few years prior – the absence of unprotected chairshots to the head is not one of them.

  • kurt

    Are you serious, bro? lol How could anyone compare a chair shot to a GTS? Your head is bouncing off the PADDED knee with the GTS, and taking hard metal to the head with a chair shot. just the momentum alone is so much different. Coming off of the shoulders into Punk's knee is not much distance at all, as opposed to a full swing directly to the head from a heavy metal chair. Mentioning Dolf Ziggler selling moves like he does just goes to show how good he is at it.

  • diddy

    We all know a steel chair to the head is a lot more painful then a DDT gts or kick as Metal is harder then flesh and bone or springy wrestling rings

  • Keep both brand, unify the world titles which will slow talet to be on both shows and use the us and intercontinental titles like they should be used for, to build talent. You could then have long world title reigns and still have the short title reigns with the secondary belts and please let’s bring back proper tag team wrestling where you have teams focused on the tag belts only.

    • Dougie

      So many ideas along these lines as well mate.
      I’ll agree with ya on that

    • brad

      completely agree with this

  • Paul

    I saw some brutal chair shots in the past and to be honest it’s not really necessary to bend metal over someone’s head for the purpose of entertainment.

  • Daarko

    The last question was mine. And the question was not out of ignorance, i just believe that 1 single mistaken GTS is like 10 chair shots and a DDT gone wrong can cause serious damage to the neck area. I understand the approach the WWE has done and I do not miss the chair shots to the head especially on behalf of the wrestlers. But then again, if they can have trash cans that are thin as paper and ladders that break when Sin Cara is powerbombed on to them, then they can certainly have poor-built chairs. And however they protect themselves from the GTS, I think a knee (possibly with a hand on it) hurts more if it goes wrong and connects with the jaw, because the surface area of the knee is smaller, but has greater mass and some force behind it, while the chair is thinner and has a larger surface area.

    – HOWEVER, I'm am not approving unprotected chair shots, I just made a simple question, if it was more symbolic than effective.
    Have a nice day 🙂 !

    • Eiji

      Just look at what a simple kick from Goldberg can do.

  • MonsterMike42

    When I read that last question, the first thing I thought of was the Royal Rumble in 1999. The WWE Championship match was an I Quit match between The Rock and Mick Foley. Foley was only supposed to take a couple of chair shots in that match but instead took eleven shots to the head at the end. When I think of that, I am glad that chair shots to the head are banned.

  • Mark

    Richard, In response to the question about combining titles, Im sorry but the reason you gave is not a good one. WWE can easily build superstarts without having them win titles. How do you think they built starts all those years before having two titles? The point is it has made the titles worth almost nothing, and I would like to see one World/WWE Championship title therefore making it a much bigger deal win a wrestler wins it.

  • Lenny

    This year will mark the tenth year since WWE begun their brand extension and because of this, it opened the doors to guys like Cena, Orton, Christian and more recent, Daniel Bryan. To end it after almost 10 years is like that old saying, if it’s not broke, don’t fix it! I loved the early days of the brand extension when wrestlers were exclusive to one show and if they appeared at the other show it wad considered shocking! I remember in 2002 when The Undertaket jumped to Smackdown because he was going after the undisputed title and Brock won it from the Rock at SS and that was considered shocking! Good ol days that will never be again!

  • just a fan

    colt cabana has a youtube series called "creative has nothing for you" it is hilarious

  • just a fan

    it was up long befor ztlis if i understand correctly

  • Trippster

    I think chair shots to the skull should be used in ppv matches every once in a while. Not often, but just enough to give them that “WOW” moment. I think the wrestlers feel that chair shots aforestry the consequences just for the huge “pops” and to “get over”

  • 7028brethart

    Chair shots to the head are unnecessary, allways cringe when a chair shot to the head is about to be delivered, still remember when the rock bashed foley about 9 to 10 straights times in the skull, could not believe what I was watching, all this while foley was handcuffed.

    • Paul

      I’ll never forget the eddie guerro chair shot from jbl, brutal!

  • @jblack424

    Only thing I can say is some ppl like hardcore wrestling and two guys destroying each other.chair shots to head metal to bone is risky. Every once on a while would work handful times a year. Low risk and impact could be big rewards. To take a guy out. I still believe once a year also at ppv a really brutal hardcore match.not rock and foley hardcore even though I don’t mind it at all. That’s what made that match so memorable. And maybe handful also a lil blood at ppv, 3 times a year. Making a man bleed now could be from a rivalry hotter than ever no that’s its there anymore. No blading just maybe hold packet bust during big spot. Js

  • Andrew

    The brand extension doesn't create competition within WWE. Smackdown has still never competed ratings-wise with RAW. It's always been the "B" show, with lesser stars, and lower ratings. The brand extension needed to end several years ago. They could still easily build talent with one brand. They did it for decades.The brand extension is old and tired, like a lot of things WWE refuses to change (Cena's character comes to mind). I think if they did the build up to unifying the belts and combining the brands, the shows would do monster numbers. And people would actually care about Smackdown again if they were able to see the bigger names on Friday nights. Plus, they would have two shows a week to build storylines, instead of just one. Sorry Richard, but you're dead wrong on this one. The brand extension needs to go.