TNA Region, Mexico City Subregion, Second Round: (3) Triple H. vs. (14) Gene Kiniski

Discussion in 'TNA Region' started by klunderbunker, Mar 24, 2015.


Who Wins This Matchup?

  1. Triple H

  2. Gene Kiniski

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. klunderbunker

    klunderbunker Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House

    Jan 8, 2007
    Likes Received:
    This is a second round match in the TNA Region, Mexico City Subregion. It is a standard one on one match held under TNA Rules. It will be held at the Arena Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico.



    #3. Triple H



    #14. Gene Kiniski

    Polls will be open for three days following a one day period for discussion. Voting will be based on who you feel is the greater of the two competitors. Post your reasons for why your pick should win below. Remember that this is non-spam and the most votes in the poll win. Any ties will be broken by the amount of posts of support for each candidate, with one vote per poster.

    Also remember that this is a non-spam forum. If you post a response without giving a reason for your selection, it will be penalized for spam and deleted.
  2. Dave

    Dave Administrator
    Staff Member Administrator

    Mar 30, 2009
    Likes Received:
    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. 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. 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.

    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. 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.

    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.
  3. Bernkastel

    Bernkastel Reaper of Miracles

    Jul 3, 2006
    Likes Received:
    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.

    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.

    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.]

    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.

    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.

    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.
  4. Tastycles

    Tastycles Turn Bayley heel

    Jun 16, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Look, Triple H is given a lot of shit and a lot of it is probably deserved, but the fact remains that he has a pretty good head for the business. He was on top of Raw from the brand split (and hence the thinning of talent) until Cena emerged as someone better than him. He carried on winning titles after that but never dominates in the same way. Kiniski on the other hand was able to lead and draw to the biggest promotion of the day despite not having the regional stronghold of many of his contemporaries. I'd say he has to win this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"