One thing we might talk about is metrics. Are we judging it on "number of great matches" or are we judging it on who does what better, even in average matches? I've always been an advocate of the latter, but on this board, debates often seem to come down to the former. It's quite interesting to see some people shifting a little bit to make this call.
Why must we treat this as a binary issue? It's what they do well plus what they actually produce with it. Very few people here have advocated rating workers solely by counting great matches. I know you know that, having participated in a number of these methodology conversations.
It's not, but I thought I'd raise it, since it seems to me that Steamboat smokes the other two on matches. And in so many other discussions, it's usually brought out as a the smoking gun, but in this thread it seems to be counting the same as categories that I've never seen privileged in this way before.
If we take "great matches" out of it, I think both Martel and Tito have better "fire" than Steamboat in their comebacks. I think they are arguably both more charismatic as in-ring personalities as well. Selling is between Steamboat and Martel for me; Steamer was a big OTT bumper, Martel better at showing struggle on the mat and getting the crowd into comebacks when he inevitably breaks the hold. I also think that Martel is possibly better at building a match from a slow start to a crescendo. A lot of Steamboat's best matches are worked at high pace and intensity with a lot of back and forth. Steamboat's matwork in other matches can be boring and I'd probably take Martel working an arm or whatever.
If I'm quieter on Tito it's because I need to re-visit his high end stuff.