'Mania 25 vs 'Mania 26

The problem with attending large events is you inevitably wind up thinking the entire thing was better than it really was. The memories you have of it is not just shaped by the event itself, but also everything that lead up to it. How are we then supposed to form a valid critique of said event if we are biased towards it to begin with

My case in point: The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 25 compared to
The Undertaker vs Shawn Michaels at WrestleMania 26.

Both matches are widely (they really are, I googled and could not find one reviewer who said the matches were simply 'O,K or Great'.) regarded as two of the best pro-wrestling matches in history (I'm discounting Japanese wrestling and Independent wrestling as I don't follow them). The 'Taker and Shawn are also widely considered two of the very best wrestlers out there, especially Shawn. He has, in my opinion, become the greatest wrestler in history. He simply cannot have a bad match!

The match was simply phenomenal. It was literally edge of your seat watching. I've put the full match below for your viewing pleasure (hopefully) and, handily, it includes the pre-match hype detailing the storyline.

Now, honestly, what did you think of it? Would you regard it as the best match ever let alone the greatest match in WrestleMania history? I would, but does my opinion count if I told you that I was actually there and witnessed it live? Surely me being there skews any 'credibility' my opinion has, right?  The reason I'm harping on about this is that it seems more people are in favour of 'HBK' and 'Takers clash at 'Mania 26...something I just don't quite fully get. Again, find the full match below.

So, I would seriously like to know: Which camp do you fall into? 'Mania 25 or 'Mania 26?