From: jsteeves@ac.dal.ca (Jason Steeves)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
Subject: Re: What is a suplex?
Date: 4 Jan 93 22:05:07 -0400
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1i8glbINN4kt@bigboote.WPI.EDU>, steveso@wpi.WPI.EDU (Steven C Sousa) writes:
> In article <1993Jan3.220840.9846@ac.dal.ca> jsteeves@ac.dal.ca (Jason Steeves) writes:

>>I would add both wrestlers actually falling to the mat. Still a little
>>vague as one can execute a gut wrench suplex without falling. It should also
>>be performed in one fluid motion, excluding the likes of the "Razor's edge".

> One fluid motion? That would rule out vertical suplexes, so that can't be it.

A vertical suplex certainly is one fluid motion unless your name is
Davey Boy Smith and you like to hold your opponent vertical for a half
hour. Call it one fluid motion or without change in direction and you
rule out powerbombs and Razor's Edges. 

> "A suplex is any move in which one wrestler grabs another in such a fashion 
> that would allow him to lift the other off the mat, and then drops him onto his
> back without releasing the original hold."

Won't work as not all suplexes drop the opponent on his back. See front
face suplex and inverted suplex.

> I like this one because it excludes a body slam, but includes *most* everything
> else I consider a suplex. Notable exceptions are the gutwrench and the tilt-a-
> whirl, but both of those are possibly non-suplex-ish. Also by using my
> definition, both the "Razor's edge" and one form of the power bomb would have
> to be considered suplexes. Further honing of my definition is encouraged.

Tilt-a-whirl is not a suplex at all. Gut wrench fits into your new definition
fine.

In all this re-arranging of the definition, a powerslam seems to fit into
our definition now :-/

IMHO, falling to the mat with your opponent is the No 1 qualifier. In
"pure" forms of the suplex, it's one fluid motion. A front face suplex
involves a change in direction, but since it's a modified vertical
suplex, it borrows the "suplex" name from it.

>>An interesting thread would be to name as many different suplexes 
> 
>>Northern Lights suplex (belly to belly into a bridge for a pin)
> 
> By this one do you mean the "Perfectplex"? I would not call how that one
> begins a belly-to-belly at all. However, I can't visualize how a belly-to-belly
> could possibly lead to a bridge. 

Now that you mention it, I did forget Cradle suplex on my list. Another
one would be Running Suplex.

In North America, it's most common to see someone belly-to-belly suplex
someone by lifting your opponent and turning to the side to dump him
on his back. The Northern Lights suplex enjoys most of its popularity in
Japan. You belly-to-belly suplex your opponent straight over your head
(as Rick Steiner does off the second rope), but hang onto the waistlock.
Your opponent lands on his back and you're bent over double in a bridge.
It's complicated to explain, but it's one of the most impressive suplexes
IMHO. It doesn't get any more impressive than seeing Hase (I think)
Northern Lights suplex Big Van Vader. This is on the second RSPW tape
(the one Dave did).

   ______       
  (__  __)     .----------------------. 
 _  / /        | Jason Steeves        |
( \/ /         | (jsteeves@ac.dal.ca) |
 \__/ ASON     `----------------------'
Posted-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:21:12 -0600
Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:19:44 CST
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:21:12 -0600
From: Otto Heuer #3 <ottoh3@cfsmo.honeywell.com>
To: rec.sport.pro-wrestling
Subject: [WCW] Wrecking Crew at the Clash