I recently came across people saying that Stacy Keibler was originally booked to win the Women's Championship in the middle of the golden age and turned it down. I searched around to see whether that was something said by a particular figure in wrestling in an interview or dirtsheet lore that is now considered absolute fact without proper confirmation. Didn't find anything aside from more people mentioning it without referencing a source. I wasn't a consistent member if the Internet Wrestling Community (IWC) back then.
If someone was to bring up the WWE strongly intending to follow through with giving Chyna the WWF Championship in 1999, I would believe that. It fits with what was going on back then and fits with how they were pushing Chyna even before that situation. During the golden age, no eye-candy divas won the title except for Trish. Even after Trish left, the only eye-candy divas to win it for years were women being pushed as centerpiece, as Trish was. Booking Stacy Keibler to win the title back then just seems out of place. Of course, she was very popular. You can debate whether she or Torrie Wilson was the most over eye-candy diva during the golden age to not be pushed as centerpiece. But would the WWE really book an eye-candy diva with limited wrestling ability to win the title during the golden age just because of overness? The first eye-candy diva to win a title without being pushed as centerpiece since 2001 was Eve Torres in 2010, and that wasn't because she was over. That kind of push was a filler push. Alicia Fox got a title run. Eve got another run where she was not being featured as centerpiece. Before you knew it, the WWE had become comfortable giving those kind of divas title reigns, even if they were not being pushed like Trish. Regardless, all those women had more wrestling credibility than Stacy Keibler back then, even though they did not have her overness.
Let's say the WWE was legitimately serious about putting the title on Stacy Keibler. She is one of my favorites, but she never needed the title. I like that she would turn it down out of respect to other women more deserving, if the story is true. It's like what I sometimes say about AJ Lee. She does not need the title. She might even do better if they started pushing her in the periphery again. Stacy Keibler never needed a title reign to be over. She could get a great career without it.
What could have been the WWE's intentions for legitimately wanting to put the title on Stacy Keibler? I do not think they were trying to further "divafy" the golden age. That is, I don't think they were trying to make it more about eye-candy divas. Of course, you did still have Playboy pushes, the start of the Diva Search, and other "diva" things going on during the golden age. What you didn't have, as I mentioned before, was a variety of eye-candy divas winning the title. Just Trish Stratus. If the WWE's goal was truly to start integrating those eye-candy divas more into the title scene, Stacy Keibler declining a title reign would not have stopped them. They certainly wouldn't have waited until 2010 to start putting titles on eye-candy divas beyond the ones pushed as centerpiece. If the story is true, I think it would have been a booking decision just to reward Stacy's popularity. It was not like the WWE was having any issues getting Trish to work out as centerpiece.
Let's say they did get the title on her. A title reign does not determine what type of career or push a diva is getting. How they are actually being treated is what determines the type of career and push. How would they have likely handled Stacy Keibler? They were not going to give up on Trish Stratus as centerpiece. Stacy Keibler does not have the wrestling credibility to be a credible jobber. I think it would just be the kind of eye-candy filler push you get during the first dark age, but a little more respectable. I have a tough time believing they would do that. Stacy would continue to do what she was doing at that time, just holding a title for a short while. While researching to find the source of this topic, I came across some fans discussing it. Some said that the reason Stacy declined was probably because she didn't want to risk injury in the ring. What they are overlooking is that putting the title on Stacy did not mean she would be forced to wrestle a certain style or even wrestle more often. During the first dark age, you saw a few women holding the Women's Championship and not do anything major with it in terms of wrestling for the bulk of their reigns. Stacy Keibler was wrestling some matches here and there even before this time they supposedly wanted to give her the title. If she was that afraid of injury, she would not have even done that. If she was fine with that light work rate, she could continue that during a title reign. Besides, Trish vs. Lita still would have dominated the diva scene around then. And there were credible jobbers to help carry Stacy.
Would this have changed the golden age? What determines the era the diva division is in isn't simply what the WWE is doing or trying to do. If it was that easy, you might say the golden age lasted even after Trish and Lita left. I would not say that. Things still remained efficient for years and the WWE was doing the same practices they did in the golden age. Difference is, it was not bringing the same results. And as things did not work out, you could see the WWE slowly making mistakes and heading towards this dark age. The WWE diva division didn't just go from a golden age to dark age overnight. I like to call that era in between the era of failed centerpieces. In addition to looking at what the WWE is doing, you have to look at how it is working out. The golden age is looked at fondly for how respectable it was in terms of women's wrestling. There were issues, but they seem to get buried under people talking about how great Trish and Lita were and how the WWE treated women's wrestling. Giving Stacy Keibler a title run would be something out of a dark age. Would it have completely ruined the respectability? Probably not. Would fans have complained about it like you have seen just earlier this week? You didn't have Twitter back then and fans were not as rebellious. I do not think this one booking decision would have ruined the quality of the golden age. Stacy Keibler winning the title might not have helped women's wrestling, but it might have been a nice gesture and some of her fans may have liked it. And if she was flopping horribly in the ring, they could just take the title off her.
There is also the idea of Torrie Wilson being originally slated to be the first Diva's Champion. That is something I can buy as true. Smackdown did not have a centerpiece back then. If she had gotten the title, she also would have been pushed as centerpiece. Michelle McCool ended up getting that push. She never got over, despite becoming very solid in the ring. Would Torrie Wilson have been a better Smackdown centerpiece than McCool? I think so. She already had a good connection with the fans and was doing well in the ring. Injuries screwed her over. She was already the top star on Smackdown for years. She was the face there. The only thing keeping her from being centerpiece is that she was not getting a title and was not being booked like Trish was, with credible jobbers rotating around her. You want to talk about what might have been? If Torrie Wilson had remained healthy, she might have been pushed as a centerpiece, worked out, and that might have slowed the demise of the diva division. Just another example of injuries hurting divas in line for those A+ careers.
Let me create a spectrum. Since the diva division started in 1998, many eye-candy divas have won a title, whether it be the Women's Championship or Diva's Championship. Not all of them were pushed as centerpiece. Not all of them were great in the ring. Let me create a spectrum for these divas based on how they were utilized and how well they improved in the ring. On one side, you have Trish Stratus, the greatest centerpiece the diva division ever had. She certainly became great in the ring. It is probably debatable whether Michelle McCool became more solid than her. McCool is probably the second best centerpiece, just in terms of wrestling ability, not overness. On the other side, you have Debra. She was an eye-candy diva that was just a manager and held the title for a few weeks in the first dark age. She was not a wrestler at all. The Kat isn't too far away from her. In the middle, you have those eye-candy divas that became solid, but were pushed as credible jobbers. Layla fits there.
If Stacy Keibler had won the title, where would she fit in that spectrum? She obviously would not have been pushed as centerpiece and did not have the credibility to be pushed like that, but she was not as horrible as Debra or The Kat. She would still be on the "periphery diva" side of the spectrum, but would be a little bit closer towards those eye-candy divas that knew how to wrestle somewhat.
How about Torrie Wilson? If she had won the Diva's Championship, she would be on the "centerpiece" side of the spectrum. Would she lean towards the side of those centerpieces that were good in the ring? Or those that were just jokes or flopped? Hard to say. This is just speculation because her injuries ruined her. Just going by how she performed on Smackdown as the top star there, if she had continued to improve from there, I think she would lean towards the centerpieces with the more respectable wrestling ability.
Where in the world would The Bellas fall? I am talking about during Nikki's current title reign. The two have each held the Diva's Championship once prior to their current push. They had wrestling credibility, but were not pushed as centerpiece or as proper periphery divas. Back then, I would put them in the "credible jobber" area, leaning towards the side of eye-candy divas that were not great wrestlers. Now, they have improved. I do not see them getting booked as true centerpieces, yet. I would put them on the periphery side, leaning towards being good in-ring workers.
Most fans might just rank the divas. Who are the best models-turned-wrestlers to win a title in the WWE diva division? Or something like that. Trish Stratus and certain other women would obviously dominate that list, while certain other women get dumped on. I don't think that is entirely fair. Some women were just not pushed like Trish Stratus and might not have even had the wrestling credibility to get that push. The WWE just happened to book them to win a title anyway. It might be hard to visualize that spectrum. I probably should have drawn it out or diagrammed it somehow. I just hope you can picture it. If nothing else, it's a more elaborate way to rank them.
