Wow Kev , if your defense of your Bret Hart selection was this long , I can't wait to read your defense of Shawn Michaels placement .

I'm still clinging to hope that the Big Bossman cracks the top five!

Thanks for your continued thoughtfulness, smart writing and passion for wrestling. I hope your example is emulated by more of your readers (as well as other wrestling sites). We need more voices like yours Kevin. Thanks again.

BTW, I'm excited to see how closely my list matches yours from here on out.

Kevin,

I thought your reasoning was well thought out and solid. Did you do this much consideration for all 25 and even beyond to get it down to 25?

I liked Hart as a kid, but just taking a look at his book, give me a break. Is this guy serious? He said his match with Piper at 8 "saved the pay-per-view" and if it wasn't for his wrestling expertise at 12 the Iron Man match would have never worked because Shawn was so gassed and could barely continue.

My now favorite memory of the Hit Man: Neidhart no-shows in Buffalo, so Hart then takes on both Powers and Roma in singles matches and jobs to them both back-to-back.

The biggest crybaby there ever was, is or will be.

yeah i agree with jack in hebron.
might as well not even mention shawns first couple of wrestlemanias cause they were terrible.

lost to twin towers wm5
lost to orient express wm6
beat haku and barbarian, who are jobbers at wm7
opened wm8 and 9 versus tito and tatanka.REAL WINNERS THERE! TITO IS A LEGEND BUT WAS LIKE 1WIN AND 7 LOSSES AT WM. THOSE ARENT BIG WINS! weaseled out of fighting hart at wm13.
wm14 was more about stone cold and tyson than it was shawn. his matches after his back injury save him, but he is not better than hart

lets stop the bret hart and shawn michaels beef. one is better in certain categories and the other is better in other categories. bret hart is a better technical wrestler and shawn is the high flyer with charisma. they are both legends. i would have to say though, bret is still haunted by it cause he is the victim. change the roles and shawn would be the same. Wrestlemania 14 post show, he whined at shane mcmahon about tyson and austin putting an austin 3:16 shirt over him after he got laid out. he didnt wanna past the touch. bret hart is an honest true legend. better than hhh,shawn, and savage.

The odds are that with the amount of people on the internet that think their opinions have won some sort of Undisputed Title match, beating Austin and Rock in the same night, that there will be a lot of people disputing your choices.

Personally, I'll wait to see the people you chose before Bret Hart to see what I think then.

You might do well in writing an explanation for your choices when you first post them. You might avoid 'YouTube' style comments then.

Your blogs are always entertaining by the way, even if I do disagree with some of them.

Fair enough, Kevin. I respect your opinion. Don't necessarily agree, but I respect it. I think, for a Bet fan like myself, I am so used to the Hunters, Shawns, Flairs, and Hogans of the world disparaging his abilities, that I feel the need to defend him as passionately yet objectively as I can. You're right, being considered among the Top 10 of all the guys who have ever worked WM is hardly a slight. The numbers can be interpreted in so many ways, as can match quality. And there is no right or wrong. I just think seeing Bret below Hunter was a bit galling to me.

Hope you didn't think I was being disrespectful to your rankings. I wasn't. I agree with much of it, and with much of what you write.

As I alluded to in the previous entry, I had thought that Bret should get a pass for having to work with Yokozuna, but this entry reminded me that your list is about what happened, not what could have, would have, or should have happened, so I accept your arguement.

Bret is a great worker, but Michaels is better. In the ring. On the mic. Overall Michaels has the star power that Bret always lacked and that's why Michaels has to rank above the Hitman.

Take away the storied hatred between the two and look at it objectively. Michaels was a pioneering performer in WWE, and it is hard to argue against the fact that Michaels has stolen the show at some of the overall best worked WM's of all time since his return. (WM19, 21, 22, 24) Like I said Hart is great, maybe even top 5 but Michaels has as strong a claim to be no.1 as anyone and will likely be in competition with Austin, Hogan and Undertaker for the top spot!

Top 7 have to be:

7. HHH
6. Macho Man Randy Savage
5. The Undertaker
4. The Rock
3. Stone Cold Steve Austin
2. HBK
1. Hulk Hogan

(At least that'd be my list)

If Michaels wins, we riot!

That's very interesting, and this explanation makes me think Hulk Hogan might be ranked #1 afterall since Bret is dropped down to the #6-#8 range because his initial WrestleMania appearances were inconsequential matches.

Excellent way to indirectly hype the rest of the list!! I will be looking forward to reading them over the week!

PS-- JTK now has the forerunner for the funniest statement I've read in your comments this year!

Sure are a lot of whining in this post comments...

It's his list, you can cry all you want but it's HIS blog and HIS personal list. You have no right to tell him he's wrong or to complain as much as you are.

White Rabbit, yes we do have a right to disagree with Eck on his selections in a civil manner. This is not just Eck's blog, it's the Baltimore Sun's and all it's paying readers also. I think Eck realizes without readers to posters, this blog is nothing.

One wrestler who is missing...

Where is Tito Santana on this list? His WM had a major impact on the WWE in Mexico, the Caribbean, and points south. Surely he belongs in the top 25. I know he was never a top star but he sure brought in the spanish speaking crowd. Much like Rey Mysterio does today.

RESPONSE FROM KE: I think you answered your own question. Santana was on the first eight Mania cards, but never in a real prominent position. He wrestled The Executioner in the opener at WM 1, and then was in tag matches in 2 through 5. From 6 to 8, he was a jobber to the stars (losing to Barbarian, Jacques Rogeau and Shawn Michaels).

What possible difference does it make whether business was down or not during his singles career?

Are you going to penalize HBK for the same thing, because WWF business sucked just as bad when he was champion.

RESPONSE FROM KE: It makes a difference when we're talking about stars because stars draw money.

Oh, but Kevin, Hart only had 1 main event match with Yokozuna. You're forgetting that WrestleMania IX was actually headlined by the epic 21 second encounter between Hogan and Yokozuna, remember?

In all serious, the last 5 minutes of that PPV have to go down as 5 of the worst in WWE history. Hart and Yokozuna have a serviceable match, although not what you'd want to see main eventing your biggest PPV of the year. Then Hart has Yokozuna in the Sharpshooter but he gets pinned because Mr. Fuji throws salt in his eyes and he gets rolled up. I mean, seriously? A little salt in his eyes, and Hart can't kick out. What is that? So then Hogan comes out to check on Hart. And unbelievably, Mr. Fuji challenges Hogan to wrestle Yokozuna. When else in the history of WWE has a heel champion, after already wrestling a grueling 10 minute match or so, put the title on the line immedately thereafter? And then Hogan wins the belt in under 30 seconds. It still boggles the mind 16 years later.

"Whether Hart was a victim of bad timing of circumstances or whatever, the truth is that he was on top during a period when interest in wrestling was in decline."

You got it right. Personally, I tuned out WWE wrestling during that period as well for the first time ever largely out of disinterest with Bret Hart. He was a good wrestler but I never found his nor many characters during that period very compelling. Stone Cold, Rock, Foley and that gang brought me back in.

White Rabbit -
Not to pile on , but if we don't comment back , it kinda sorta defeats the purpose of the blog . Yes in this case the list is Kevins opinion . But by nature it elicits ours in return . What you do have a point in however is how sometimes people choose to add venom to their comments.

Kev I think you got things all wrong here everyone hear respects your opinion in some shape or form otherwise we would not be critizing your picks other than that i will agree you can't discredit Bret for how the business was in the early to mid ninties and give shawn a pass though because the bottom line is as stone cold would say the reason the byrate was because Tyson was there and people wanted to see him & Austin fight a theme that they still use today not always in the main event. like I said though I only had him at 7 so whats 1 spot to me as long as the next 7 is the 7 that ben in Vegas has then i have no problems except i know your gonna get problems with your placement of Mr. Wrestlemania cause i know you will put him higher than probably where he belongs but thats ok

You know if your ever at the same hall a fame with Bret, He would ask you to leave. He knows that he would be at a higher spot then what you put him at. lol

Agree with you kevin.And for people who question HBK being higher ....When i watched wrestling in 95 96' i was such a big fan of bret so i hated hbk , hated him very much. but now i respect hbk more than anybody. I mean just look at the guy 44 years old broke his back n still the quality of his matches . Shawn vs austin at wrestlemania wa an epic ( cause hbk wrestled with broken back n still put up a gr8 show)Shawn vs razor (best ladder match) shawn vs angle (masterpiece) shawn vs chris ( see it to believe it) shawn vs john(made even john looked gud)shawn vs ric(most emotional match ever).Nobody can match that. im open for discussion if anybody disagrees.{Pardon me for my english}
hes the best ever , after ric though. Respect RIC Respect Shawn Respect SAVAGE

I don't think it's that most of the people disrespected YOUR list, though obviously some did. I thought most of the comments were part of that discussion that you wanted to initiate. However, if you want to make sure that you don't get that kind of reaction again, I suggest you go back and lower HBK to #4, below Hogan, Austin, and Taker. :-)

I just want to say since I was one of the ones to comment on your placement of Hart that I don't necessarily disagree with his placement on your list, I just really liked him when I watched as a kid, I missed pretty much the whole attitude era and I would never argue Bret Hart to be a bigger star than Savage, Hogan, HBK, Undertaker, Austin, Rock or even HHH. Just my favorite ^_^

I've said it before but props again on continuing to write such an intelligent critical response to wrestling that is otherwise so lacking. I always look forward to reading your posts (sometimes more than actually watching the shows...)

Kev, Bret Hart's prime happened at the same time's as Michaels so if you think that worked against him then it must have worked against Shawns as well. The truth of the matter is that HHH should barely make it to the top 10 and now is couple of places above Bret which is really shocking in a way. Though I admire Michaels more than Hart, I think they should be closely ranked just like Austin and Rock should be. HHH is way below all 4 of them.

RESPONSE FROM KE: The difference is that Hart never wrestled a match for WWE after 97. Many of Michaels' WrestleMania moments have been since he returned from his back injury.

I've got no problem with Bret being placed #8 and there was no bigger Bret fan than me as a child. I think people forget that many of Bret's most memorable matches didn't occur at Wrestlemania. For example, gad either Summerslam IC Title matches (Mr. Perfect or British Bulldog) occurred at Wrestlemania, I think he jumps up the list.

Unfortunately for Bret, he never had a great big man in a match and was forced to wrestle the likes of Yokozuna and Bob Backlund. If he had good, not great, matches instead of matches against those two opponents, he'd have a pretty good case for the top five.

Kevin you are lying to yourself when you say the match with Shawn really prepelled Austin to new heights. Two things "made" Stone Cole Steve Austin.

1) The Austin 3:16 speech
2) The match with Bret Hart.

The title match a year later could have cam against anyone. Undertaker, The Rock, Owen, Hunter. At that point it didn't matter. Two things really sold that match. The fact that everyone knew Austin was going to win, and the presence of Mike Tyson. Like it or not, Shawn was a complete non-factor in that match, he was irreelevant. That match didn't make Austin, the one the year before did.

Furthermore while we are on the subject of Shawn, the match that "made" Shawn came against, Bret Hart. There was nobody in the WWF in 1996 that Shawn could have has as good, believbable match with. Could he have had as good a match as he did with Bret, with say 'Taker, or Diesel? Hell no. Bret Hart made Austin what he was, and he shot Shawn Micahels to the very top of the mountain, making him a believable champion.

Two of the biggest stars of all time have Bret Hart to thank for making them what they are today, and Bret did it all in the space of a year.

The matches with Yoko were bad, but give me one good match Yoko ever had? The fact is in terms of "importance to the business" as you put it, Bret's match with Austin alone is what sparked the era knwon as "attitude". The single most important era in the WWE's history. Bret made that era possible, without Bret's match with Austin at WM13, who knows if there would even be a WWE now? That match is THEE most important match ever, find me one more or of equal importance.

ROFLOLMAO =)) =)) What??? Shawn Michaels made Austin. Kevin, this is really a bizzare statement.Cuz as far as I know, Austin still mantains in every interview about How Bret was the reason for his success. He himself said in an interview about Shawn that he is a total ... well never mind, I won't type that word, otherwise you'll ban me from commenting on your blog.The only man responsible for Austin's success other than Bret is Austin himself. And also do remember that Shawn Michaels is the second worst drawing champion of all time. Only behind Sid Vicious. Thats good company, right??? And somebody just commented how Shawn carried John to a good match at wrestlemania 23. Sorry brother, but that match was total crap. Even Hunter's had better matches with Cena.

To Mike, are you saying that Bret is better than Shawn because he would pass a torch? That is a load of crap. Bret was so ego driven, he would whine every time he was asked to drop the belt, even basically admitting so in his book.

And to Chris, you saying Shawn weaseled out is based solely on Bret's version of the story. Severl people have backed up Shawn, that he was told not to wrestle by doctor's, well respected doctors at that. Try looking at things a little more objectively. As much crap as you guys give Kevin for his HBK bias, you guys are 10 fold worse in your sheepish following of Bret.

If you can't read Bret's book and see that he was the most pompous, egotistical person who was so full of crap, then you are truly blindly following him.

So it was pretty much the reasoning I used, that Hart was a top 5 worker, but not a good draw. Eck's right that it wasn't totally because of Hart that business suffered, but as the top dog you get more of the credit when things are good and more of the blame when they're bad. In terms of position on the card and impact on the business, Hart falls short of all the guys ahead of him on the list (save HHH). He's had big matches at Wrestlemania, but nothing that matches up with the three Austin/Rock showdowns, Rock/Hogan, Hogan/Savage, or the upcoming HBK/Undertaker.

Kevin, I'm as big a Hart mark as the next guy, but I agree with your reasoning here. This is a countdown of Wrestlemania stars, not wrestling stars or great workers or whatever. However, I don't think it's quite right to say that WM14 made Austin more than 13. I'd counter that by saying that Austin would not have got the WM14 spot if it hadn't been for Austin-Bret. So I'd say that Michaels solidified Austin's position as a top guy, rather than "making" him. Keep 'em coming, though!

RESPONSE FROM KE: Let me clarify my thoughts on who "made" Austin. I wrote : "[The Hart match] certainly played a large role, but what really shot Austin through the roof was his match against Michaels the following year with Mike Tyson as the special guest referee."

Hart-Austin was a huge step in making Austin the top guy in the company. However, business really boomed after WM 14 (against Michaels with Tyson as ref) led to Austin-Vincef eud.

I have to really disagree about the WM 14 match being what shot Austin through the roof. It was his coronation moment, but he was already a made man. The match was just a formality.

Also, I wasn't aware until now that this list was being primarily decided on who made the most money at Mania. If that's the case then it's bizarre Shawn Michaels is so high since, as others have pointed out, he hit his peak the same time Bret did, and although Shawn had some very good WM matches post-retirement, they were mostly either undercard filer or "Extra guy in triple threat match". The only "Wrestlemania moment" he's been a part of since coming back was with Flair last year.

As much as people may disagree with Hart's placement, that doesn't mean that the other wrestlers ahead of him do or do not deserve their spots. I'm hoping this doesn't become another Bret vs. Shawn "thing" where b/c Bret was placed lower on the list, all of Shawn's credentials, impact, and talents suddenly disappear. It's unfair to say that just because Bret may warrant (in some others' opinion, including mine) a higher placement that the placement Shawn receives isn't warranted. Looking objectively at this list, with regard to Kevin's criteria, I understand the rankings, thus far, including Bret Hart's (I am a Bret fan, btw).