I agree with what the Brain said. The guys you mentioned would be slaughtered by the previous era midcards and perhaps the other eras. There are reasons for that. The training of the performers is quite different. The midcarders of the eighties etc, were part of the territory system and if they weren't main event in WWE, they might have been main event somewhere else, they were in most instances better workers and the feuds they were involved in were better developed.
Solid talent on the mike and in the ring. Failed by poor booking and lack of creative vision for his character. Wasted opportunity.
Solid in th ring, not good on the mike. Killed with the Momma's boy gimmick, just stupid booking by WWE.
Solid on the mike, was okay in the ring from what I saw (little as it was). Biggest shot was winning MITB, then he gets injured and then sometime later he gets bounced from WWE
Horrible gimmick to start off with. Decent on the mike, ok in the ring but again bad booking and no direction with his character.
I'm not a huge fan of the Hardy Boys, but I sort of understand their appeal. They do high risk moves and they are unconventional. Matt Hardy wasn't the star that Jeff was, had difficulty on the mike and was ok in the ring. Clearly better as part of the tag team than on his own.
Solid performer, underrated on the mike and in the ring. He can do a lot more than a spinning kick as some people would suggest. He should have been in the main event a lot sooner, he had the fan support, but backstage bs politics comes into play again.
Finlay & William Regal
Both in the same category, seasoned veterans who knew how to work not overwhelmingly great on the mike but helped to put over up and coming performers, or be in a meaningful feud with them.
Another guy mentioned ....
Had a look, never really saw what he had to offer. Killed by booking and lack of creative ideas for him.