Read your review of Sting as WON HOF Contender and the unspoken name that kept coming up for me was Bret Hart. Basically, everything you could say for drawing Sting's power, it seems, would apply for Bret, plus, he only had, what, 8 years, tops, as a main event wrestler, versus Sting's bazillion years (Even if they were low-drawing). Yet Bret was in the HOF by '96, after just 4 sub-par (from a drawing standard) years as a main eventer, IMO.
Sure, Bret was probably a much better worker. But does that really justify him being (I assume) a first-ballot WON HOF'er while Sting can't even get past CM Punk or Lesnar.
And Edge? No offense, but WTF? How could Edge beat Sting?
Edge isn't in either, but he's arguably a better worker and certainly drew better as champion than Sting did. Edge is basically handicapped by being in the "WWE brand first, superstars second" era of the business, though, where the only one to escape the pack of 50/50 midcarders was John Cena.
And yes, Bret being not just a better worker, but an elite-level worker more than justifies his inclusion on its own. Even if he hadn't been in, Montreal alone would have made him a slam dunk inclusion for historical reasons alone.