WWE: Why Chair Shots Should Not Be Banned from Professional Wrestling
Eric Kanes vs. RiZE
DEBATE: Should chair shots (protective and unprotective) be banned?
What's up, ladies and gentlemen? My name is Eric Kanes and today, I am participating in a debate against fellow writer, RiZE. The topic of this debate is "should chair shots be banned from professional wrestling?"
Before I go on, let me point one thing out. The topic does not ask whether or not unprotective chair shots to the head should be banned. Instead, the topic asks whether or not chair shots should be banned altogether.
With that said, let me get one thing out of the way. I do believe that chair shots should be done in moderation and used sparingly. I'm not saying that there should be a chair shot to the head in every single match. That would be dangerous and quite frankly, pointless.
However, banning chair shots altogether would be completely ludicrous and there are many reasons why. Without any further ado, let's take a look at those reasons:
1. Chair Shots Have Become Staples of Gimmick Matches
It's true. Whether it's a Hell in a Cell, TLC, Falls Count Anywhere, or Last Man Standing Match, chair shots have become staples of these matches. These matches would not be the same without chair shots.
In the present day WWE, we see a lot of recycled feuds due to the limited roster and the way these feuds are freshened up is with gimmick matches. Nowadays, nearly every major rivalry culminates with a gimmick match.
Now, let me ask you this - if chair shots were to be banned, how would these gimmick matches take place? Either they would have to be completely scrapped, meaning that every single rivalry would end in the exact same way, or we'd get much lamer versions of these matches. I mean, the Hell in a Cell match concept has already practically lost all of its credibility with the lack of blood. Can you imagine what the match would be like without chair shots as well? It would pretty much be wrestlers bashing each other into the cell for 30 minutes and I have to question whether or not that would be any safer.
What about TLC? The match is one of the most exciting and most anticipated concepts every year because of the combination of tables, ladders, and chairs blended together in one match. Without chairs, what would the match be? Tables, ladders, and...crowbars?
As you can see, removing chairs from gimmick matches would make them a lot harder to pull off than they already are and it would change absolutely nothing in terms of dangerousness considering that other weapons would still be used...which brings me to my next point.
2. There Are Far More Dangerous Weapons Used In Professional Wrestling
Since this debate is talking about banning chairs and chairs only, we're completely disregarding all of the other dangerous weapons that are used in matches.
Last I checked, thumbtacks and flaming tables are not banned and I think we can all agree that those weapons are far more hazardous but I'm not even talking about those. Let's compare chairs to two of the other commonly used weapons in wrestling - ladders and steel steps.
The average steel chair weighs about 10 pounds. If you take a look at this chart and do the math, the average ladder weighs about 40 pounds. Now, what would hurt more - a shot to the head with a 10-pound chair or a shot to the head with a 40-pound ladder?
Furthermore, steel steps which are used as a weapon almost as frequently as steel chairs weigh anywhre from 75-150 pounds. Again, what do you think would hurt more - a shot to head with a 10-pound chair or a shot to the head with 150-pound steel steps?
It's not rocket science. Clearly, chairs are not the most dangerous weapons used in professional wrestling. So, if you want to ban chairs due to their dangers, fine. But if you're doing that, you need to ban every other weapon that is equally or more dangerous. If not, then that is the ultimate form of hypocrisy and further proves my argument of why banning chairs is pointless and irrelevant.
3. Banning Chairs Shots Would Destruct WWE's Current PPV Schedule
Six out of the thirteen current WWE PPVs are centered around a gimmick match. That's almost half! This does tie in with one of my previous points but the fact remains that banning chair shots would ruin WWE's current PPV schedule. I'll admit that Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, and Money in the Bank matches can be done without chairs although chairs have enhanced these matches in the past.
However, Extreme Rules, Hell in a Cell, and TLC, three PPVs that have produced great shows in the past, would have to be called off or toned down to the point of ridiculousness.
And that's not all. You may not be a fan of those particular PPVs and not think much of them but take a look at another interesting fact. One of the main event matches at WrestleMania this year, and one of the matches that is currently a Match of the Year candidate was Triple H vs. The Undertaker? Guess what? The match was a No Holds Barred match. We can speculate all we want but the reason it was a No Holds Barred match was because Triple H and Undertaker can't work at the pace that they used to and adding weapons into the mix kept it interesting throughout and took some of the workload off the injured Undertaker. Without chair shots, that match would not have been No Holds Barred. Without chair shots, WrestleMania wouldn't have been complete.
Let's take a look at this year's upcoming SummerSlam. One of the main event matches is Christian vs. Randy Orton, again in a No Holds Barred match. Why is it No Holds Barred? It's because we've seen these men work four traditional matches in a row and a fifth would be overkill. No Holds Barred will keep the rivalry fresh. Again, without chair shots, the No Holds Barred stipulation would not mean as much and just like WrestleMania, SummerSlam would not be complete.
With all of that said, it is blatantly obvious that banning chair shots would take a huge toll on the current WWE PPV schedule, and for no good reason, to be honest.
4. Chairs Have Had a Huge Impact on Character Development in the Past
Last but not least, take a look at how chairs have aided several wrestlers in getting over before. If you want an example, look no further than Edge and Christian, arguably the greatest tag team of all time. Edge and Christian were two of the six founders of the TLC match and during that time, they were known for their use of steel chairs and "con-chair-tos." For those that don't know, Edge went on to win 31 championships, including 11 world championships and a record 12 tag team championships. Christian is currently the world champion and the top heel on SmackDown. Who knows what routes their careers would've gone had they not started out the way they did?
That's not even to mention all of the "hardcore" wrestlers who have used chairs in their regular arsenals. Mick Foley, Terry Funk, and Rob Van Dam are just a few wrestlers known for frequently using chairs.
What about the dozens of wrestlers who got their careers started in ECW? The point I'm trying to make is that if chairs had always been banned, many current wrestlers who are Hall of Famers or future Hall of Famers might have had much difference legacies and their careers might have gone down a completely different path. Mick Foley might not have turned out to be "The Hardcore Icon." Edge and Christian might not have turned out to be the Hall of Fame-level team that they are. Maybe in the future, another wrestler might get over by bringing chairs into his arsenal. You never know.
The bottom line is that without chairs, there would be close to no gimmick matches. Without chairs, rivalries would get stale really fast. Without chairs, some wrestlers would be prevented from getting over. With chairs, pro wrestling as we know it would just not be the same.
If you want me to advance in the CvC competition, you can vote for this article right here.
Eric Kanes is the owner of quickwrestlingnews.com, your #1 source for all wrestling news.
Add Eric Kanes on Facebook.
Follow Eric Kanes on Twitter.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?