No, technically, according to some official paperwork, it kicked off at WrestleMania 14. Anyone who watched during this period understands it (the shifting of content) started in late 1996/early 1997 with Bret Hart and Steve Austin.
Why? Because fans started rooting for the tweener instead of the clear cut face? Why does that deserve to be the beginning of the Attitude Era more so than a bizarre turn out of right field that resulted in someone being punched out by a celebrity?
So people should ignore what happened for more than a year prior to WM 14 because someone who chooses a date tells them to? That doesn't work for me, sorry.
Not ignore, but recognize that it isn't part of the era. It helped build up to the era for sure, but it wasn't part of it.
Who gives a shit? He took part for well over a year. Again, we're arguing over dates.
Except your date is wrong, mine is right, and Shawn Michaels only wrestled one match during the Attitude Era.
Add them, I don't give a shit. I have clearly stated this era has more main eventers. Too bad not one guy you just mentioned would have made it past Sunday Night Heat in 1998.
Yeah, but just about everyone else on my list would have stormed the main event scene.
*Sigh*
I tend to believe that eras are defined by biggest superstars of that era which in this case happens to be Cena. Now ideally, the era should have coincided with Cena's first title win but in this case we can't do that because Cena won his first title as a completely different character. That is why I have chosen to define the era from the time he started to represent the characteristics that have made him famous( or infamous) today.
I think famous is the much better adjective.
And who says that you there isn't a measurable event in 2006 to start off that era. You can have the WM 22 match with HHH at Chicago with Cena, the guy that should have been the babyface getting heckled. Or you can go to ONS 2006 and his match against RVD where something similar happened. The point is the PG era started way before 2008 because even though WWE went PG in 2008 the salient characteristics of that era were prevalant much before 2008. Therefore the PG era has been much longer than the Attitude Era and therefore a direct numerical comparison cannot be made.
Your first two examples are absolutely ******ed. You just said in your last paragraph that the era is defined by the biggest superstar, why would you choose an event where he was booed? When he returned at the 2008 Royal Rumble the roof blew off of MSG, a place normally filled to the brim with Cena haters. Furthermore, your only "salient characteristic of that era" is that Cena stopped being a rapper. One could argue that the PG Era is also defined by variety, something that didn't really begin until 2008, which you said yourself.
That's eight. You have 8 guys in four years and the AE had 6 guys in three years. What's this large number of Main eventers in the PG era( the larger part of it anyway) as compared to the Attitude era that you are talking about?
1) It's nine. Learn to count.
2) I cut out anyone from 2010-2011, so guys like Miz, CM Punk, Christian, and Sheamus were taken out of the picture.
Orton failed more and was in the wilderness for a longer time. Three years to be exact. He failed as a main event face against HHH and again as the heel of Smackdown in 2006. He was pushed hard first in 2004 and yet until 2007 he was a guy who competed for the IC title quite often against the likes of Carlito. Also Rock's push was at a much lower level.
How do Orton's failures have anything to do with the fact that he's been a main eventer in the PG Era?
Credible? Sure. Permanent? Nope. That suggests to me that he is entertaining in spurts.
And Benoit, Jericho, and Angle were permanent main eventers during the Attitude Era?
The fact that Edge had to be turned heel after just one feud is proof that his run did not succeed. As for being cheered, sure he got cheered but the reaction was much quieter for his matches as compared to some of the other matches on the card.
Wow, what you're doing is really impressive. Tell me, did you have to train yourself to be able to talk out of your ass, or does it just come naturally to you?
Much quieter compared to Cena's or Orton's matches? I'll give you that, but his reactions were still plenty loud. Remember how much people loved chanting "spear" during his face run? And he turned heel because after he was drafted to Raw the only main event heel on the show was Chris Jericho. It was either him or Orton, and the WWE decided to turn Edge heel, which I think we can all agree was the right decision given Orton's success as a face.
His second face run featured him in a feud with Kane that featured some of the most illogical storylines that have been seen in recent times. Honestly, what else have you got? A feud with Alberto that was as cookie cutter as it can get. People probably have rated his last run more highly because of the fact that he retired during it.
The Kane storyline was stupid as fuck, but the people seemed to be into it. You clearly forgot his feud with Dolph, which was top notch as they put on some great matches, and his match with Del Rio at Mania was one of the better ones on the card. He was over as hell, he cut awesome promos and did some great segments (who didn't love seeing him hit the laptop with a steel chair?), and he proved to be the third biggest draw in the company when he retired. Where's the shortcomings again?
Great draw? Remains to be seen.
Can't believe I wrote that?
Even if he's not as big a draw as Cena or Orton, that doesn't mean he's not a terrific main eventer. Keep in mind, not all of your Attitude Era main eventers were great draws either.
It seems I misunderstood this part of your arguement.
Clearly.
