sek69 Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 What's the deal with people hating the Canadian Destroyer? Sure, it's not something you could do in a real fight, but the majority of moves in wrestling require co-operation from both parties. I don't get why there's such a hatred for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Well, not everyone hates it, some people love it, as it has won move of the year twice in a row in the Observer awards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Because it's a move that is only a matter of time before it will 'Droz' someone. It's dangerous, it's surgical (meaning it has to be precise every time), and it's dangerous. It's a great looking move, but way too much risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Every one I've seen the guy's head was really nowhere near hitting the mat. I don't think the move's as dangerous as it looks. Besides, Stan Hansen broke Bruno's neck by fucking up a body slam, so any move can be potentially dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest savagerulz Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Keep in mind, you're doing a very difficult flip with a guy's neck between your legs and have to land perfect. If your weight is shifted, you can break a neck or collarbone. Imagine if the guy receiving falls sideways while the other falls straight down. I'm willing to bet an immediate broken neck, maybe paralyzation, or death. Â Granted, the person receiving would be responsible, but it just seems way too risky, if I were a promoter, to allow to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 People throw the "real fight" term around pretty liberally. Â What I think a lot of people mean is there are things in wrestling that are done that have been accepted because they have been done for a real long time and have fallen under the things you suspend your disbelief for. I always cite throwing your opponent into the ropes and having them ricochet back to you. That would never happen in a "real fight" even if this "real fight" takes place in a wrestling ring. There are some universal things wrestling fans accept. Â Bret Hart says he always tried to go for that "real fight" kind of feel when doing matches, but even his five moves of doom are not very real or applicable in a real fight scenario. I'm 5'11, 215 lbs and I'm telling you that although I've only been in a handful of fights my entire life, if I don't want to be backbreakered by Bret, I'm just not gonna be. Same with the Sharpshooter. The only way he applies those to me is if he knocks me out cold and carries my dead weight to do these moves. With the advent of MMA in the world, people need to watch the "real fight" terms. Â It's all about what you will and won't accept as pro wrestling. Doesn't make you an idiot if you do or don't accept the move as doable though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 What I think a lot of people mean is there are things in wrestling that are done that have been accepted because they have been done for a real long time and have fallen under the things you suspend your disbelief for. I always cite throwing your opponent into the ropes and having them ricochet back to you. That would never happen in a "real fight" even if this "real fight" takes place in a wrestling ring. There are some universal things wrestling fans accept. That move is done poorly the majority of the time, actually. The logic behind the Irish whip is that you're supposed to be throwing your opponent into the ropes so hard that the momentum sends him running, and he turns around to avoid falling out of the ring. Notice how a Chris Benoit puts that extra umph into it where most guys just start running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Good point as far as the logic behind the irish whip. I'll keep an eye out for Benoit's extra umph in his matches. Â My thing is in a real fight, whether the fight turns into wrestling or fist fighting, the irish whip isn't very applicable, but in pro wrestling it's something that is universally accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHawk Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I sat in on a Les Thatcher training seminar last year, and he was berating these two guys for an Irish whip spot because they just started running, and "any eight year old kid with any knowledge of leverage at all could see right through that". He was stressing the importance of the giver getting the extra ummph and the receiver waiting for the right time to start moving toward the ropes. Â And yet HWA is the one that lost the developmental deal. ::shrugs:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dorian Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 The Canadian Destroy is more hated for the impending damage that can result on the receiver than actual justified hate. As was already pointed out in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 26, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 The funny thing is this thread is the first time I've heard about it. There was a huge thread at DVDVR about how the move was silly because of the level of parcipitation needed from the person taking the move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I sat in on a Les Thatcher training seminar last year, and he was berating these two guys for an Irish whip spot because they just started running, and "any eight year old kid with any knowledge of leverage at all could see right through that". He was stressing the importance of the giver getting the extra ummph and the receiver waiting for the right time to start moving toward the ropes.  And yet HWA is the one that lost the developmental deal. ::shrugs:: It's a sad commentary on the state of wrestling the last several years. WWE (and to a lesser extent, TNA) should be looking to expand developmental territories, not shrink them. Guys like Les Thatcher should be training guys and guys like Larry Matysik should be booking programs (or at least advising), yet they're just sitting at home and occasionally doing something involved with the indy wrestling scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 The funny thing is this thread is the first time I've heard about it. There was a huge thread at DVDVR about how the move was silly because of the level of parcipitation needed from the person taking the move. Gordon Solie told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resident Evil Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 What I think a lot of people mean is there are things in wrestling that are done that have been accepted because they have been done for a real long time and have fallen under the things you suspend your disbelief for. I always cite throwing your opponent into the ropes and having them ricochet back to you. That would never happen in a "real fight" even if this "real fight" takes place in a wrestling ring. There are some universal things wrestling fans accept.That move is done poorly the majority of the time, actually. The logic behind the Irish whip is that you're supposed to be throwing your opponent into the ropes so hard that the momentum sends him running, and he turns around to avoid falling out of the ring. Notice how a Chris Benoit puts that extra umph into it where most guys just start running. Jamie Knoble would do that too. Actually, when I first saw Noble wrestle I immediatly thought he was a Benoit fan because of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Noble has said that Eddy and Benoit were the 2 people most influencial to him. Â His WCW stuff is almost Benoitcito like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crucifixio Jones Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I saw the Canadian Destroyer for the first time a few weeks ago on Impact and despite it looking SUPER SWANK~! I thought it was completely implausible. But that's the thing with wrestling -- sometimes you have to sacrifice realism for the spectacular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Yeah, you can't really accept lucha if you don't allow for silly moves and movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I don't expect wrestling to be "realistic" as much as I expect it to be internally consistent in its logic. Mythologically correct seems like a good term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Here's something for all of us to chew on... Â Are you/we more likely to forgive something in wrestling if it's not very "realistic", but is crazy over with the fans? Â For instance, Hulk Hogan. It isn't plausible for a man to take a ton of offense, including the kitchen sink and finisher, to only "hulk up", no sell everything done, and then have his opponent jobbing in 3 low impact moves. However, that formula is a huge draw and gets the fans going nuts. The Canadian Destroyer is sort of in the same league. On message boards, there are folks who won't accept it because the guy taking the move has to work just as hard, perhaps harder than the guy executing it. However, from what I've seen, Live crowds pop big for it. Does it make it ok then? Â goodhelmet brings up a good point with lucha. Lucha looks very choreographed, but it works and has worked for Mexico and it's fans longer than any promotion in the history of wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The Hogan no-sell will always bother me, but it bothers me more in some matches than in others. But one bad sequence is not enough to ruin an entire match. Hogan will never have a ***** classic because of his flaws, but he can still have a great match with that there. Hogan/Savage from WM5 is my favorite match from him, and it's a great match, but it would have been even better with Hogan selling all the way to the bitter end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Hogan's no selling never really bothered me. On the rare occasion that he'd miss the leg drop he'd go back to selling again. I can buy that over the Michaels kip up where he never sells anything done before that move again. Though I preferred how Sting did it personally. Â It's funny though because Meltzer and Cornette talked about the whole hulking up concept during the Wrestling Gold DVDs and essentially said that Popeye cartoons were the inspiration for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crucifixio Jones Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I always thought it was Hogan's FIGHTING SPIRIT~! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The thing about Hogan that always bothered me the most was the fact that his huge 24" Pythons were always played up yet they didn't ever really come into the equation of a match unless he was slamming a fat dude. His finisher was a leg drop but a clothesline, like the Axe Bomber he used in Japan, would've made more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted January 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I would venture that the People's Elbow was probably both the most over and most ridiculous move in wrestling at the same time. He never won a match with it, so I could live with it. Being a wrestling fan is all about knowing when to let shit slide for the greater good of getting over with the crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dangerous A Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Actually, Rock won more than a few share of matches with the People's Elbow. He used that to beat HHH for the title at Backlash 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts