This entire conversation is ridiculous.
Kurt's sucked for years. YEARS. 17 year career and, depending on who you ask, 7-10 of them are worthless because he betrayed his own talent and ability (if we're talking about the most talented wrestlers ever, Kurt has to be in the top 5. I've never seen get good immediately the way he did, maybe even including Jumbo) and decided to do EPICS and mini-EPICS with guys like Hernandez third from the top. The entire formula is stupid and, like others have said, has contributed to finishers not meaning a damn thing anymore (see John Cena's US Title challenge for an example of how that works. The AA is essentially a bullshyt move now).
Now, he has some great, GREAT years. Kurt from 2000-2003 or so (up until he had that botched neck surgery that Brock undid with one chairshot) was an excellent wrestler, and he certainly had mini-runs afterward that I enjoyed quite a bit. But let's not act as if he had some decades long sustained run of greatness or anything. He isn't, say, Bret Hart.
@Jmare007 and
@stro have been on point through the entire thread, basically. And while I can't speak to the debate about Rick Martel's greatness, since I haven't watched enough of his early work, I CAN say that the post-1996 bias is real on this board. There are plenty of wrestlers from the territory/regional era that I would take over Kurt. For example, if you replace Rick Martel with, say, Jack Brisco and ask me who the better wrestler was, I'm going with Jack Brisco every time, since he was actually at least good for his entire 20 year career.
The day people drop the blinders as it relates to Kurt is the day I rejoice as a wrestling fan.