This ought to be a good match, actually. But one that I fully expect Triple H to emerge from victorious. And not because I am the biggest Triple H mark on the forum. But because he deserves to.
How do you figure? Hunter never carried the WWE during the 90's. He was simply just another one of their major players. And then when he took over RAW in 2004 after literally EVERYONE worth their salt was gone, the company suffered.
From what I know Kiniski, he wasn't a wrestler to be scoffed at. He won titles wherever he went quite frankly. I've been watching a lot more of NWA and AWA recently in preparation for this tournament and Kiniski was a name that continually popped up.
Yeah. It continued to pop up because unlike Trips, Big Thunder actually
had a serious claim to be the top wrestler in the world at the time.
I'm not ruling out the chance of an upset here because he was immensely talented and beat the likes of Verne Gagne, Bruno Sammartino and Dory Funk. But an upset is what it would be.
He defeated Lou Thesz, Verne Gagne, Dick the Brusier, Jack Brisco, Dory Funk, Terry Funk, Harley Race, Pat O' Conner, Edouward Carpentier, among others. Kiniski defeated everyone exactly like HHH had done, while being a heel, except HHH spent 2004 feuding and defeating guys that were allot less talented than the pack he
didn't unanimously lead in the late 90's [Jericho, Kane, Booker, Steiner vs Austin, Rock, Taker, Mankind.]
For me, Triple H is too good for Kiniski. And whilst both men are pretty equal when it comes to size and stature, I feel as though Triple H has enough ring smarts to eventually get the win here.
I fail to see how HHH as a heel could do anything to gain an advantage in a match that Kiniski the heel could not. Not outside of leaving the ring to blatantly get a weapon because he'd have no chance of beating Kiniski straight up.
Triple H has done it all and seen it all. He's a Grand Slam Champion in the WWE, a Royal Rumble winner and a King of the Ring. As much as Kiniski is a grizzled and well thought of veteran, I don't think he reached the same heights as Triple H did in the wrestling world. He's the guy you love to hate but he's that guy for a reason... Because he's that damn good, pardon the expression.
Kiniski held 2 of the 3 major world titles in the world during his career. And the WWWF title he literally
stole. And he was able to get away with that because fans saw him as being Sammartino's better anyway. For Bruno to defeat Kiniski was seen as a much bigger deal than Kiniski defeating Bruno.
That said, it'll be a tough fight but Triple H has shown that he is a man for the big occasion and has delivered more time and more Championships than perhaps any other. He's the paradigm of what a great heel should be and I think that's what ours him over Gene here.
Not really. In the late 90's Triple H traded the title with a plethora of men that were no where near the top of the card. And when you look at his record against those that could be considered top of the card, big era stars like Kiniski once was, it stinks. Overwhelming losses to Rock, Austin, and John Cena. His record against contemporary stars closer to his level like Angle, Big Show, Mankind, Kane, Taker, Jericho comes out to be much closer.
For me I'll take Kiniski. HHH was hotshotted the title numerous times, and either failed in the role or failed to be consistent amongst the sea of talent WWE had. Big Thunder had 3 years of consistent dominance where he defeated everybody, and was the undisputed best in the world.
Vote Canada's Greatest Athlete.
