A "Golden Era" Debate

The “Golden Era” in my opinion consists of the divas from the years 2001-2004 . The Divas were

Lita
Trish Stratus
Molly Holly
Stacy Kiebler
Ivory
Torrie Wilson
Dawn Marie
Terri Runnels
Jazz
Jacqueline
Nidia
Victoria
Miss Jackie
Shaniqua
Sable
Gail Kim


That ^^^ era was the BEST time for Mainstream Women’s Wrestling, am I right?

So my question is, Which two would you have pushed to the moon BESIDES Trish and Lita?

I’m trying to create a interesting topic and I would love to see your answers, Who would you have pushed more than Trish and Lita. Please choose 2 divas. Dig Deep with your answers folks….

I say Shaniqua and Jazz because they were very dominant women, and I'd have to though Ndia in there too, because she wrestled better then a lot of the chicks there, but she was never really given anytime to shine, we got to see her flicker a little bit, but then she was released.

Nidia and Molly Holly.

both had the talent...just needed a chance to gain crowd support and the like.

Molly and Victoria. Both should have had more title runs.

You are not lying Janine, all the girls that had two reigns( Molly, Jacqueline, Victoria and Jazz) deserved at least one more title reign…

As for the topic I really enjoyed Nidia so much, the girl was getting over on Raw. I can kill whoever released her. She was something special and the crowd loved her, her wrestling was getting so good too.

Molly Holly was so OVER!!!! As a baby face back when she debuted, remember? She was feuding with Trish and WWE could have pushed the hell out of her but they didn’t.

one sec i just have to point out that not ALL divas need 3-4 reigns just because they were great wrestlers
and Molly's two title reigns where enough considering both where between 3 and 8 month long...her reigns where nearlly as long as lita and mickies 4 if not longer

length of title reigns doesnt matter...the number does.

and i'm with Janine that both Molly and Victoria should've had atleast 3 reigns.

of course the length of a reign matters
the longer they hold them, the better the champion they are
the more they hold the more theyve lost

When WWE talks about Trish that dont say "she lost the belt 7 times"

they say she is a 7 time champion, meaning she captured it 7 times...no one ever mentions the losses...

they also fail to mention how long some of her reigns were...they just mention 7 reigns and that's it.

so yeah, i think number of reigns matters more.

that is when they are hyping the title and hyping trish as a 7 time champion
when they mention moolah they mention her 27 year reigns
hogans 4 year reign
and it is indeed easier for them to say the amount of reigns
its easier to go two time womans champ rather then womans champ for an overall 10 months or whatever it may be
doesnt make it anymore important as far as prestige to the wrestler goes

But not too many people are going to say "(insert name) held the belt for X amount of months"....it's always "(insert name) was a X amount title holder."

you can talk about Hogan and Moolah like that because back then it was possible. in this day and age you wont see a 4 year women's title reign. lol



and considering it was years between Victoria's last reign and her retirement, i tink they could've easily squeezed another title reign in there for her. (like during her feud with Mickie when she made the 'list' )

oh no doubt i agree on that
but she was ok with putting over talent
although i agree with the list she coulda won it
but no, she lost and didnt even get a return match as they focused on putting melina in the shot

I agree no offense to Trish but she shouldnt have had 7 reigns. That was a bit too much.

I agree Janine...7 reigns was too much for Trish..or honestly, anyone, in my opinion.