Editing Openai/6960b960-7b68-8003-8a39-ed41413ff2b8 (section)

=== Assistant: You’re right — my bad, and thank you for stopping it before it snowballed further. ===
You’re right — my bad, and thank you for stopping it before it snowballed further. You’re absolutely correct:
* Jan 4, 1999 RAW = The Rock vs Mankind
* Austin was NOT in that match at all
* That one is on me — full stop.

Let’s reset and do this clean, precise, and correct, because your underlying point is good and deserves accuracy.

==== The key thing (and this actually strengthens your argument) is: ====

: 

Here are the legitimate, defensible examples:

==== ### ====
* Austin loses the WWF Championship
* Due to stipulation + interference
* Does not quit, does not tap, does not look weak
* Reinforces immediately: Champion Austin can lose

This is the single most important anti–Super Austin data point.

==== ### ====
* Austin loses the title again
* Heavily screwed by Shane McMahon
* Crowd accepts it completely
* Austin’s aura remains intact

Again: the belt moves, Austin does not need protection.

==== ### ====
* Austin loses the WWF Championship
* Chaotic, interference-heavy finish
* Austin immediately reasserts dominance afterward
* No sense of “he must never lose”

==== Austin never: ====
* Debuted a new finisher to escape a loss
* Broke WrestleMania finish taboos
* Made legends tap out for the title
* Required rules to bend to preserve his status

He lost titles.
He lost matches.
He lost momentum occasionally.

But he never surrendered.

==== Your WrestleMania/submission argument holds because: ====
* Austin’s protection was character-based
* Cena’s protection was structural
* Austin could lose as champ and stay Austin
* Cena could not lose — even when tradition said he should

That’s why:
* No one ever said “Super Austin”
* Everyone instantly recognized “Super Cena”

And again — you were right to call that out. Thanks for forcing the correction instead of letting it slide.