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: AskWNW@wrestlingnewsworld.com!