Ask 411 Wrestling 03.12.14: Kayfabe, Knees, Pre-Kane, More!
Posted by Mathew Sforcina on 03.12.2014
Is John Cena a babyface for life? Why don't wrestlers like Randy Savage's match with Ricky Steamboat from WrestleMania III? Did Sting and Kane ever wrestle? All this and more covered this week in Ask 411 Wrestling!
Hello, greetings, salutations and whatever other greeting you'd like to hear, this is Ask 411 Wrestling! I am your host, Mathew Sforcina, and I guess 75% of the internet was right, since Bryan/HHH with a spot in the main event is now a go for WM, so I was wrong. Still think DAVE is walking out with the belt, and thus I don't want Bryan there, but hey, I'm the pessimistic guy, so hopefully I'm wrong.
ONS Awesome's Knee: Did not know that, that Awesome blew out his knee on that last dive. Makes sense. Thanks Kouvre!
IP Fooling: I do know how to fool the IP checker, in theory. But when I've done that to watch Colbert/Daily and check a couple other things, it's been slow. Australian internet SUCKS, so I'm just gonna bite the bullet and wait. Thanks for the tips though.
The Fink: The Fink has done commentary for thousands of matches. He's wrestled four times. He wins.
The Trivia Crown
Who am I? I wrestled in the NWA in 1985, and the WWF in 2000. In the last battle royal on TV I fought in, I was eliminated by a guy I once held a tag title with (although it wasn't my sole tag reign in the big leagues, a reign that ended in forfeiting the belts). Both of my impact finishers featured scientific terminology in their names. I've managed one world champ, and another guy who has a connection to this week's Raw. I share a dubious record with Daniel Bryan, a naming insistance with Vince McMahon and Chris Benoit once broke something of mine. I have a duplicative designation verbiage, and I'd probably say it like that too. Who am I?
bubbathegeek has the answer.
He was eliminated by Skinner on the RAW 15th Anniversary battle royal they held the NWA Florida Tag Team titles. He used Atomic knee drop and Atomic spinecrusher. He managed Kurt Angle and the Sultan, whose sons, The Usos, won the Tag Team titles on RAW. Lost the WWF title in less than a minute, 8 sec. He went by Mr. Backlund and Benoit broke his Royal Rumble record for longest time in the match.
Maravilloso has this week's question, although as always party people, happy to take trivia from any and all sources…
I was born in the same state as two former world champions who are still active. I won a title those two former world champions also won. I had tryouts in two major promotions, one in singles match (which I won) and one in a tag team match (which I did the job to the tag team champions at that time). I also won a tag team championship outside of United States teaming with someone who was supposed to have a feud with a guaranteed future Hall of Famer, but was released just before that feud would ever happen. I've fought with royalty, and I'm a firm believer in something. Who am I?
Getting Down To Business
Stefan is first off since he has school work riding on some of this.
i've got 2 quick questions:
1. Andy Kaufmann is sometimes quoted: "There is no drama like wrestling." Do you know maybe when or where he said that? Is there maybe a quotable source out there or is this some kind of urban legend?
His official website lists that quote as a quote from him, so it is a quotable source, I would assume. It's been a little while since I had to do footnotes for a university paper but I believe that would probably count as a reliable source.
As for when/where he said it, I was unable to find a source or moment. Probably it was a line he repeated in many interviews, perhaps. But by all means dear readers, if one of you remembers him saying that, do let us all know below…
2. I'm studying literature in Germany and this summer I will write my master degree about wrestling (as an intermedial spectactle and it's art of athletic narration). One main topic for my research is the term Kayfabe. As far as I know, is the term "Kayfabe" in it's origins an old expression of the carnival world, for keeping the illusions of carnival alive, the same way it was used later in the wrestling business. When and how was it original used and how made it exactly the transition to the wrestling industry? Maybe you can help me out with this. And can you recommend any book, magazine, webpage or other quotable sources for the origins of the term "Kayfabe" out there (maybe even of it's pre-wrestling days)?
Keep up the good work!
Many words in wrestling slang have come from or evolved from carny, the cant or language of carnival workers that was used to have conversations in front of marks (customers generally, or the specific ones that were gullible and thus should be encouraged to game a lot) without letting on the tricks. Wrestling began as part of the travelling carnival, and when it started to evolve with the Gold Dust Trio in the 20's, the language came with it.
The problem with a language designed to protect secrets and fool people, as spoken by a wide, sprawling group of people is that they don't tend to write down origins of words. The term originated with the carnys, sure, but whether it's ‘be fake' backwards or just a corruption of the pig latin of the term or a corruption of caveo, Latin for "be on guard" or some other way the word came to being, there's no official reason for the word to be that. But since the word was used by all carnys to indicate, most of the time, "shut up there's a mark about", wrestlers used it too. It then evolved when wrestling became separate to carnivals as the word for when to act the part. If I was chatting with my opponent for that evening about our match and someone came in and said kayfabe, I would immediately start insulting the guy and then walking off past, presumably, someone not in the wrestling business. It was the sign to act like wrestlers. And then it evolved into the general term of "everything about wrestling that we protect" from that.
The nearest to a source on the subject is this rather excellent blog about the term by one John Lister. I'd use that. Hell, I nearly just used it for my answer.
Joel asks two unrelated questions.
Love to read your column every week! I've got two totally unrelated questions for ya.
1. Steve Regal was recently on Steve Austin's podcast talking about Savage/Steamboat from WMIII. He said something about not likening the match anymore due to something Steamboat told him. What's the story there?
I got a transcript from one Zanzoken, to whit…
SCSA: What did you think, going back to Wrestlemania 3, of the Savage vs Steamboat match?
Regal: *sigh* This is a weird one for me.
SCSA: And I know why.
Regal: Yeah. I loved it, until I talked to Ricky about it...
SCSA: Right, okay. 'Nuff said. Because I know.
Regal: Yeah. And it really put me off. I still love it, but...
SCSA: If you just watch it now, for what it is... for wrestling fans' standards, it's one of the greatest matches of all time. But what we're talking about on the inside, what we're talking about... *changes subject*
Now, the reason for the sudden shift is probably because, as Regal says later on, he's old school and doesn't like talking about the inner workings of the business.
… No-one tell him I'm doing this then.
Anyway, there's two main possibilities.
One, it's about the aftermath, about how Hogan got really pissed off about how good the match was, that Ricky ends up regretting the match due to the backlash and headaches it caused later on.
But probably? It's the old "layout V calling in ring" issue. The two had matches leading into WM, and they were more Steamboat's bag, with more working the crowds. And Savage took notes about what worked and what didn't and then worked the match out using that. So maybe Steamboat feels that the match wasn't natural, it was build solely by Savage, he just rode along. It's well known he hates the match due to how much love it gets.
Or maybe there's some sort of personal issue between him and Savage, without Steamboat coming out publicly to talk about it openly, which is probably not happening, we'll never know.
2. I recently saw John Nord telling a Dusty Rhodes story about losing his "muffler!" WTF!?! Over never heard of this ANYWHERE and I've been following wrestling for over 25 years! Is this a common practice? Might help take a few bumps, I guess.
It's certainly not common practice today. Here's the story for those who hadn't heard it, free with this edition of Botchamania! 8:20 or so start.
Now, I've never seen anyone doing this, but then I don't tend to stare at my fellow wrestlers asses a lot. Maybe one or two of the women, but not the men.
Anyway, the story is told that it is used by guys with questionable personal hygiene, which I can sort of understand, especially for guys like Andre, it can be hard to clean when you're that big, if baths and the sort are too small for you. But mostly it's a sweat issue. See, before lycra and other breathable materials, wrestling tights used to be made of canvas and other heavy, stifling materials. So you would sweat a lot more. And sweat in the asscrack is often a good look, and can be pretty rank. So a muffler in that situation makes sense.
But in today's world of material that can breathe and let you sweat less, the need for a muffler is less and less. I just wear underpants beneath mine, but then I also have over pants so I'm triple layered…
3. You may have answered this, but what were the most surprising things, positive and negative, you learned when you became a pro wrestler?
Thanks for all you do.
Negative I suppose was that what I thought were all great ideas all sucked. My name, Massive Q, is the only thing that has survived from all my original ideas, and even then, only half (I intended to be just Q). I had to learn not to over-think everything, that all my clever ideas were just stupid and wouldn't work.
Positive was I guess how easy it can be with a good opponent and/or a good crowd. It took a while, but once I worked out what I was doing and didn't suck, I can work an ok-good match with almost anyone telling a simple story that always works. Not that I can be complacent, or not work at it, but just that simple things work best, and can have the best outcomes.
Sort of the flip side of the first one. Wrestling is a drama, but that doesn't mean it has to be Shakespeare to be great.
HWF asks a direct and then a very open ended question.
I was watching a match I never imagined would have happened in Randy Savage vs. Jushin Liger. I was wondering why Savage was limping before the match even started.
… I love Liger's music.
Anyway, Savage had a series of knee injuries in the 90's, what with all that elbow dropping and stuff. The last one was around 98, after which his workrate went south a lot. So obviously one of those knee injuries occurred around that time. Or, possibly, it was deliberate on the part of the bookers so as to explain while a heavyweight was on par with a junior. Japan tends to avoid those sorts of matches, they prefer big guys to work big guys and little guys work little guys and stuff, at least one on one.
Also, what other strange dream match ups or unexpected match ups have actually occurred? I'm talking matches like Chris Jericho vs. DDP or Steve Austin vs. Sting. Any other unexpected match up that may be considered a dream match by some.
Well hell, we could be here all night. Warrior/Kane happened when he was Isaac Yankem, Rock/Vader occurred, Taker/Luger, Steamboat/Bret Hart, Savage/Michaels, Savage/Austin, Kamala/Bryan, Bruiser Brody/Undertaker, Hogan/Bret (in 1979!), Savage/Taker, and Sting/Kane, in WCW.
But that's mostly culled from an excellent list here. So many more might exist. What is your favorite, readers?
I'm going to you guys a lot this week. Hmm. Let's hope I can avoid that with Chris.
Justin, great column,
Quiet from the peanut gallery please.
i have a question , back when the WWWF has the wizard, Capt Lou, and Fred Blassie how did they decide who ma manager would manage, lets say muraco comes in and he was managed by the wizard and he leaves , he then comes back about a year later who gets him and wht?
Whoever was booking at the time. Vince Sr, Gorilla Monsoon, Arnold Skaaland, George Scott and Pat Patterson were all at one time or another, as well as Vince Jr, booking the IC title scene to groom him for the top job.
Now, when a guy was brought in, if he was to get a manager, the booker would go "Lou has only two guys right now, you can get him" or "I'll break Blassie away and have him manage you only because you're special" or something. Managers and wrestlers might request a manager/client, or they might mention that they worked with someone in another region and they did well so maybe they could work with them again, and if someone really didn't want to work with someone, if they had clout, they could maybe kill it, but at the end of the day, the booker decided, based on storylines and suggestions and ideas and whim…
also when pedro won the wwwf ch from koloff he was i c ch ( i believe ) was he the first double ch ? thanks
Pedro Morales won the WWWF Heavyweight Title (they rejoined the NWA at about the same time so he wasn't a world champ) on February 8, 1971, and lost it December 1, 1973.
His IC title reigns were December 8, 1980 - June 20, 1981 and November 23, 1981 - January 22, 1983. A decade's difference. So no, he wasn't a dual champ. He was the first ever Triple Crown Champion, and if you broaden the definition a great deal he's a Grand Slam Champion, but he wasn't a dual champ.
My sole Sporcle quiz was on this very topic. And I got the answer for first ever guy wrong.
The first ever dual champ was Bruno Sammartino, as he won the WWWF United States Tag Team Championship with Spiros Arion while holding the WWWF World Title, albeit for 5 days before the tag belts were deactivated. He was also WWF International Tag Team Champion with Tony Marino for a few days before he had to forfeit the belt as he couldn't hold two at once.
Diesel was the first to hold and keep two belts though.
… I should go back and update that, shouldn't I?
Alex asks a question I can't answer with details, but that I know will cause arguments in the comment section.
Great to have you back on ask411, that was/is my favorite column in the internet.
The question is simple:
TNA regularly signs international TV deals. And some of them look really huge. Recent examples: in India and in Japan.
How much money TNA gets in those deals? I mean it is "well-known fact" (c) that TNA has been loosin money since day one. But they sell their TV/PPV product to many european/asian countries. Do they get THAT little from all their deals they are so proud of?
Thanks for your work and best greetings from Russia.
When the company doesn't produce financial reports, it becomes impossible to judge how much money they make from any one deal, or even overall. However, there is the presumed logic, in that most people agree that the bulk of whatever money TNA makes is from the TV deals. After all, Impact is a cost they incur for Spike TV's deal, and then anyone else they can flog it to is the cost of hiring a guy to sit in a booth and send the file to an email address, and maybe some dubbing if they get a really good deal.
Now, this is good, in that whatever they make on said deal is almost pure profit, since they have the show anyway, but, and this is the other side of a coin, it may well not be that much, since TNA will sell to anyone willing to buy pretty much, the deals may not be worth a lot. Add up all the deals and even a little from each is good, but it may not be enough to keep the company afloat.
But again, speculation since they don't reveal financials. I suspect that most deals aren't that great, they aren't making millions, but certainly if they said they were breaking even I would believe it. Cutting the roster costs might well be to try and break even, or it might be to try and maximise profits, without seeing the books (or having Prag around to give expert analysis) it's hard to say for sure.
Craig asks about the Fake Taker.
Great column and a must read on a weekly basis. For no real reason at all I'm curious to know what Brian 'Chainz/Fake Taker' Lee is up to these days. Any idea? I'm struggling to find much beyond a few indy dates post TNA. Blackballed (If Taker's wife rumours are true), retired or just dropped off the face of the wrestling earth?
Well he did pop up last year to do a RF Shoot interview, so he's not dead. Apparently he's pretty messed up from drugs, the reviews say of his shoot, but he's not dead. I don't think the blackballing thing is legit, or at least for slipping Taker's wife one. Getting released due to drugs, I can believe, but not that, since he was hired back again.
He's pretty much semi-retired, and possibly taking drugs a bit. Like a lot of people really…
But hey, you know more? You know what to do…
It's a Botchamania overload!
And Joe Gagne!
And I guess he's trying what we discussed earlier. Although he should take notes from Titus O'Neil…
Chris asks about Tyson and Austin.
Hi Mat -
You do a great job with the column, and as a reader of 6+ years, it's great to have you back in the saddle. It's also been fun seeing and hearing about your experiences from the inside, which adds a lot of depth to the column and the answers you present. Nice job.
I have a quick question, though this one may be difficult - I generally try to shy away from the questions that require insane amounts of research and/or don't have answers. But I stumbled across the video of Tyson vs. Austin on Raw, and I noticed something strange...
As soon as the melee breaks out, there's a camera cut to Austin pounding on some guy's back, who then appears to be completely knocked out in the ring for the rest of the exchange. I can't tell if he came from the WWF or Tyson side of things. He doesn't try to get up, he doesn't move at all.
What the heck happened? And who was that guy? Was it a legit injury or some really good selling?
Thanks and keep up the great work!
The guy is one of Tyson's men I presume, he's the bald dark skinned gentleman between Tyson and Vince. And, to follow on from that, he lunges for Austin. And so I believe he's one of Tyson's entourage who went after Austin and Austin reacted by knocking his lights out. After all, he didn't know what the guy might do, like a fan getting in the ring, Austin just took him down and out to avoid possible injury.
Again, a lot of presumption, but if he was a plant to get heat on Austin, why not mention it? And if he was a wrestler, he'd sell better than that, surely.
So yeah, he's a Tyson flunky who got overzealous and then got knocked out by Austin.
Raza talks Rumbles.
I have two questions about Royal Rumble matches, as we read and understand that in professional wrestling, outcome of main event matches are predetermined and discussed with the wrestlers at least one week before so that they could be mentally prepared (except of Wrestlemania VI as Warrior claimed in an interview that he was told only 2-3 days before WMVI, by McMahon in a meeting in a hotel alongwith Hogan, that he (warrior) going to be winning). So my first question is that as to when an athlete is told to by WWE creative that he would be winning the rumble matches (i.e either an hour or a day or a week before the event). Obviously WWE creative is always precautious that such information could be leaked in media or in IWC before the rumble match?
Depends. WWE might well know well ahead of time and inform the performer a long time in advance (like, for instance, this year I'm sure DAVE knew ahead of time), but sometimes they may still be discussing it, if they are in creative deadlock over the best outcome it might be close to the wire. But the majority of the time they would probably know the plan for the WM main event, and with it would come the logical Rumble winner. But again, there's no hard and fast rule, when WWE knows, they'd tell the person involved.
Secondly, in rumble matches some time accidental eliminations also occurs in batches of even three or four simultaneously, so what precautions would a wrestler take when he knows he going to win the match to avoid him getting accidentally eliminated (has there any such thing happened in any rumble match in the past)?.
The closest to an accidental tumble by the winner was 2005, where DAVE was supposed to catch his feet on the ropes and not be eliminated why Cena was, but he didn't grab the ropes and so we got the Vince Torn Quads out of it, with the crappy restart deal.
I know in 06 as well, Randy was the back up, in that they weren't sure if Rey could hold onto the ropes at the end, they were prepared for a Orton win if he slipped.
Now if you knew you would be winning, you'd just avoid risky situations. You'd just lie around the place, you'd grab the ropes for dear life, you would avoid wild out of control moments where you might tumble over accidentally. No skinning the cat or the like if you're not very sure of yourself. You just play it careful.
And if the worst happens, WWE might be able to save it via cameras. A couple of times guys have gone over but the refs claim feet didn't touch, and they had the luck to not be on camera at the time.
B Rad STL has a simple question.
After Andre won the title from Hogan and gave it to Debiase, how many shows (live or house) was the "Million Dollar Man" introduced as the champion before he was stripped of the belt? I know of at least one show in Boston the night after he was handed the title.
Main Event where Andre won the title was February 5th, 1988. The broadcast that DiBiase wasn't World Champ was shown on the February 13th episode of WWF Superstars, although the matches on said show were taped January 26th, more than a week ahead of the title change. He got maybe three shows as champ, two of them on the same day. He defended the belt once against Bam Bam, and then he was stripped and was not actually champ.
One Man's (Important) Opinion
Manu wants to talk Cena Heel Turns, or rather my logic about it.
Welcome back Mat - I'm a bit behind on my reading, and missed your return article, so I didn't realize it until now.
In your third article back, you said you think Cena won't turn heel for at least a decade, when his current young fanbase grows up to become cynical teenagers.
I do agree with your opinion on this, but question the timing of it for 2 reasons. 1) cena didn't become the top guy recently - he won his first world title at WM21 and, as you said in your second column back, WWE didn't have to wait on him to take off like fans want them to do with Bryan:
"you want WWE to understand that to build a new hero takes time and effort, whereas they can point to Hogan, Austin and Cena and say "didn't have to with them" and they're right. Hogan, Austin and Cena drew attention and viewers from almost day one...."
Wouldn't that mean the starting point of Cena's young fanbase began 9ish years ago? And assuming they weren't all 3 years old, a significant portion of them have already become cynical teenagers? And in another 10 years, those children who were his original fanbase will then be in their mid-20s?
No, because WWE wasn't actively courting the young fans as much then. The Cena-Teenagers have to be kids who grew up with WWE PG era, they have to have believed in Cena for all their childhood lives practically, so 2008 is probably the time frame we're talking about here. So when kids who came in from that point of time is when you'd want them as teenagers.
2) even if Cena's young fanbase from 9 years ago has become cynical teenagers now, isn't there a whole new generation of youngsters to cheer for cena, and in 10 years when they're teenagers, there will be a new generation of youngsters to cheer for cena, assuming WWE can keep pulling them in? If cena can keep acting a fool and getting women and children to cheer for him, why ever turn heel, even if the previous generation turns on him?
Again, good to have you back!
The Cena-Teenager logic is, I'll be the first to admit, very much wrestling logic. It's a cyclical thing, wherein every wrestler gets cold eventually with a fanbase, and so when that happens, you turn them. With the PG era, as you say, you could conceivably turn it over indefinitely, and they may well. WWE might see more money sticking with the kids instead of chasing the teenagers.
And there's one more reason why I'm actually officially abandoning this train of thought: The Network. WWE can now have its cake and eat it too. Because WWE can just put out PG aimed stuff as much as they want, the older fans will buy the network and watch old ECW videos and maybe tune in for Bryan matches on the replays, but they won't bother them to change the product beyond mindless, pointless internet rage.
And when the teenagers come along, some will leave, but others will buy the network too, to relive Cena as they remembered him and not the broken down guy he's become. I think.
I'm not a soothsayer, but the Network has changed the rules here, and we still don't know where the goalposts are anymore.
Rob wants to talk about WM main eventers.
Anyway, the main event of Wrestlemania - the last match on the card - is on most or all wrestlers' bucket lists. If certain rumors are to be believed, that's part of the reason for Punk's departure. And yet, it's probably safe to say that the list of WM main eventers doesn't 100% match the list of top money-drawers of the last 30 years.
So, who are the worst Wrestlemania main eventers of all time? Not in hindsight - which participants at the time of the main event had the worst ability to draw? I'd say Miz and Bigelow off the top of my head, but I'm very interested in your thoughts.
Well it sort of depends on what you mean by ‘worst ability to draw'. I mean, Mr. T and Lawrence Taylor had no track record of success and were unproven commodities, but then again do they count?
Orndorff, Bundy and Sid weren't exactly big draws when they main evented, and Big Show was almost a non-entity. Jericho was seen as a flop by most people at his main event, and Miz was also not working out well at all.
But by default, Bam Bam wins simply because he was upper-midcard at best. Everyone else, either they had a run against Hogan you could argue, or they were main event by some justification (Miz was WWE champ at the time after all) but Bam Bam was just the one chosen guy willing to job to the football player.
Joey Joe Joe Shabadoo wants to know which is worse.
Love the column - such a treat every Wednesday. Quick question for you (that falls under TOTAL OPINION): Which is worse, screwing up a long-term booking plan, or rushing the conclusion of what could be a hot angle? I'm thinking specifically of WCW ruining Starrcade '97 after a great build towards Sting/Hogan, and how that was disastrous, but perhaps less so than them hot-shotting the title to Goldberg on a free episode of Nitro. Which, in your opinion, is the worse booking decision? (And if the answer is just "Both" and a Chandler, I'll understand). Thanks as always.
Screwing up is way worse than hotshotting, as a general rule.
See, for all the talk about proper building vs striking while the iron is hot, wrestling is a storytelling medium that is very forgiving with time frames, most of the time. Although it's unlikely and goes against tradition, the idea of a title belt jumping around several times in a week is still plausible, since if there are title matches the title can change hands, and supposedly anyone can beat anyone. You can tell a story with bouncing belts. Hotshotting is a bad habit to get into, but it does have a place, sometimes to tell a story you have to speed it up, and even if you could have told a story slower, a quick one is not THAT bad, since it's still plausible in wrestling logic.
Whereas going the long burn and then fucking up the ending? That's much worse. After all, hotshotting something loses you potential benefits. The money you could have made in the chase you don't get. But if you go long term and slow burn, you enter into an agreement with the fans, that if they stick around, the payoff with be worth it. You break that trust, that agreement? They will turn on you.
Hotshotting will make a fan go "Wait, what?" Screwing up will make that fan walk away. And sure, you've got their money in the build up, but long term you normally want the audience to grow, not shrink.
Now, for the record, there have been really disastrous hotshotting, and some slow burn fuckups that got fixed, but given the choice, I'd rather hot shot than mess up.
Finally, sdkeithh talks move names.
Hey Matt, great to have you back!
I'm a huge fan of Daniel Bryan and his new finisher but hate the name. I know he is trying to riff off his current feud with Triple H, but the "Knee Plus" sounds more like a Santino Marella transition move than what knocked Cena the f*** out in the middle of the ring. Which leads me to the following opinion questions:
What is the worst name for a cool finisher?
The Attitude Adjustment has always bugged me as being a little… Silly, but then again it fits the character/era well enough I suppose, and the finish is in the "simple so I can't complain" camp, since I HATE overly complicated finishers. I feel a finisher should be impressive, sure, but doable all day, every day, to everyone.
So I like stuff like a full nelson facebuster, that sort of logical finisher (I drive you face first into the ground. That will hurt) I like. The Skull-Crushing Finale is a horrible name for it though. You're Welcome is not much better for a similar move.
MADT, Make A Diva Tap by Michelle McCool. A Heel Hook is fine as a finisher, but that name… Ugh.
But often cool moves get good names, or at least don't keep bad ones. I mean, if we open it to any move with any name it was given ever, the couple weeks that the Stone Cold Stunner was called the 3:16 probably wins. But I'm sure readers will disagree.
The best name for a bad finisher?
Cross Rhodes. I've never liked the Roll of the Dice, probably because so many people have tried to use it and it's never really worked out well for anyone. Same as the Playmaker, but that hasn't had great names. Cross Rhodes I love as a name though.
If Daniel Bryan asked you to name his new finisher what would go with (personally I'd go with either "Roaring Dragon" or "Flying Dragon")?
Well, Knee Plus was a suggestion from the fans, so clearly he likes it.
As for those ideas, he's not going by Dragon now though. That's a decent throwback, but I don't think Bryan's in a spot where that's the best idea to look back.
KENTA is the guy Bryan took the move from and he calls it the Busaiku Knee Kick, where Busaiku is a sort of Japanese slang that literally translates as "non-craftsmanship", but which means basically ugly. So KENTA is making you ugly. So I guess you could take that and make it Goatface Killer or Killer Look or something.
I'm tempted to say that since he's taken on this Yes! Movement thing, he should call it the People's Knee or something, but that's obviously too Rocky.
You could probably swing some reference to the Karate Kid, Daniel-san and all that, Crane Knee or something.
I know I'm rambling, but that's what you do when you think about gimmicks, you just come up with ideas and toss them out until one sticks.
Friend in Kneed?
Honestly, Knee Plus isn't that bad a name. I mean, I can't really think of anything good, obviously. Sure, DBKnee would probably make Xavier Woods happy (assuming he actually knows where that Over 9000 thing comes from) but Knee Plus… I can't beat it.
But hey, maybe you can? Say so below if you can, and next week I'll probably admit defeat. Until then, dear readers!