Obviously not every suplex ends with the recipient landing on the top of his head or hitting the mat with the back of his head, but I'm talking about the ones that do, like "The Randleplex" for example. When an MMA fighter properly executes a belly-to-back duplex also known as a German suplex, there is a good possibility that his opponent will hit his head on the mat when landing. My question is regarding any specific type of suplex that is designed to cause one;s opponent to land at least partially on his head. Should those suplexes be banned under the rule against spiking one's opponent on his head? Should all suplexes be banned because there is some potential, no matter how tiny, for the recipient to hit his head upon landing? A lot of people believe that at least some type of suplexes violate the rule against spiking the head of an opponent onto the mat. I say no form of suplex should be banned. They don' fit the definition of a spike.
The reason I believe it shouldn't be banned is because it is not a spike; it is a throw! In a throw, the recipient of the maneuver has some control over how and where he lands. In a spike, the recipient has no control over where he lands. That should be pretty simple to the rule makers and referees, but I don't know whether UFC fighters have been disqualified for using one of the types of suplexes which causes an opponent to at least risk landing on his head. I do know it's very controversial, much like the oblique kick is. I say "at least risk landing on his head" because the man has some control over how he lands such as by tucking his chin against his chest. The man is being thrown and he might or might not land on his head. If he does, he might land directly on his head or only partially on his head. Throwing one's opponent over your head doesn't constitute a "spike" as I understand the definition of a spike. A maneuver which would constitute a spike would be something such as a piledriver where one holds his opponent in place the whole time, directing the impact directly and purposefully right on his head. A modified Rampage-slam in which one purposely directs the position of his opponent while slamming him so as to make sure he lands on his head would be another example of an illegal spike. I don't believe any form of suplex fits the definition of a spike.
The reason I believe it shouldn't be banned is because it is not a spike; it is a throw! In a throw, the recipient of the maneuver has some control over how and where he lands. In a spike, the recipient has no control over where he lands. That should be pretty simple to the rule makers and referees, but I don't know whether UFC fighters have been disqualified for using one of the types of suplexes which causes an opponent to at least risk landing on his head. I do know it's very controversial, much like the oblique kick is. I say "at least risk landing on his head" because the man has some control over how he lands such as by tucking his chin against his chest. The man is being thrown and he might or might not land on his head. If he does, he might land directly on his head or only partially on his head. Throwing one's opponent over your head doesn't constitute a "spike" as I understand the definition of a spike. A maneuver which would constitute a spike would be something such as a piledriver where one holds his opponent in place the whole time, directing the impact directly and purposefully right on his head. A modified Rampage-slam in which one purposely directs the position of his opponent while slamming him so as to make sure he lands on his head would be another example of an illegal spike. I don't believe any form of suplex fits the definition of a spike.
