[Josh Parry]

Hey guys

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but if low blows warrant an immediate disqualification, then, kayfabe wise, why is the inverted atomic drop legal?

The regular belly-to-back pickup atomic drop looks fine, but the inverted one just always looks like a blatant knee to the balls. I know it technically isn't supposed to be, but the way it usually looks combined with how it is sold makes it look like a low blow.

To the average fan, wouldn't it seem a little confusing that you can drop somebody balls-first onto your knee, but never actually hit them there on any other circumstance?

What do you think?

 

[JuviJuiceIsLoose]

The inverted Atomic Drop is supposed be a blow to the tailbone.

 

[Josh Parry]

The inverted Atomic Drop is supposed be a blow to the tailbone.

Right, and I understand that, I said I knew what it was supposed to be, but it just doesn't look like that when executed from the front. I've never seen it done inverted style and look like it connected with the tailbone. Just always looks like a knee to the balls, and the wrestler always grabs their balls to sell the move. It's become so contrived in the WWE to the point where it might as well just be considered a strange variation of a low blow.

 

[guru of wrestling]

you can drop someone one on there nuts but you can't strike them there

 

[GR Choke]

same when a wrestler pulls there opponent into the ring post by there legs

 

[Gerdon]

Its about how its executed.

 

[Kalashnikov]

As ridiculous as it sounds, I remember an article about the difference being in that you don't actively do the illegal thing. In that article, they brought up that technically, you can suplex people on chairs, tables and whatnot, because they're part of the environment. I guess the same can be applied to this case.

 

[peowulf]

Does anyone even uses this move any more? I only see it when i watch stuff from the 80s.

 

[Neutronic]

The same reason refs dont watch replays when heels cheat

It's wrestling

 

[208551]

Does anyone even uses this move any more? I only see it when i watch stuff from the 80s.

Ted DiBiase used the move against Drew McIntyre on this weeks SmackDown. The OP probably noticed that while watching SmackDown this week and asked the question.

Skip to around 4:15:

 

[just1988]

The inverted Atomic Drop is supposed be a blow to the tailbone.

This, they call it the inverted atomic drop because "bum hole buster" doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[WrestleThoughts]

I think it was Gorilla Monsoon who explained it to Heenan during a Summerslam in the early 90s, he said it's because it's a hit to the tailbone, it would be considered that any contact with one's "manhood" is incidental, since the knee connects to the tailbone

 

[GR Choke]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSportysporty?blend=3&ob=video-mustangbase#p/u/46/P9j8DdLNr98

forward to 5 minutes, that should be a DQ right there? anyone agree?

 

[daemonicwanderer]

Does anyone even uses this move any more? I only see it when i watch stuff from the 80s.

Ted DiBiase does it (then again, he does have a bit of an 80s flare in his wrestling style). A few Divas do it too. Beth has done it a few times recently and so has Kaitlyn.

But yeah, the point of contact is meant to be your opponent's tailbone. It's taken as an incidental thing if your genitalia gets hit too. Moral of the story... gird your loins well before you wrestle.

 

[Upgrayedd]

Atomic drop hurts your ass. It's not the same thing as a low blow.

 

[Josh Parry]

Atomic drop hurts your ass. It's not the same thing as a low blow.

We've established that, thanks. The OP established that. The OP is asking why the inverted atomic drop (not the regular belly-to-back version) has become contrived to the point that it not only looks like a low blow, but the wrestlers sell the move by grabbing their crotches.

Read more carefully.

 

[dougfisher_05]

This, they call it the inverted atomic drop because "bum hole buster" doesn't have the same ring to it.

reps to you good sir!