Well; I guess I'll take a shot at this 'ere little puzzle. Is there a prize?
[1]A wrestler is hired to entertain fans in order to make fans turn over their money to the promoter. His job is to entertain fans to make the promoter money.
[2]The more fans a wrestler gets to give their money away, the better the wrestler is at doing his job.
[3]The more entertaining a wrestler is, the more fans will pay to see him.
[4]The best wrestler is the one who does his job of entertaining fans so they will turn over their money to the promoter better than any other wrestler in the business.
1: Correct.
2: Correct.
3: BZZZZT! ERROR!
Whilst the logic that a wrestler is there to draw fans/money is sound; judging a wrestler's material worth exclusively on how highly he draws is flawed, and dare I say it, slightly naive.
You see the problem with your logic is that it's the same as saying that Dannial Radcliff (that kid who plays Harry Potter in the films) is the greatest actor of all time because all of his films (to which he was the 'top face' if you will) drew exceptional amounts of money.
A wrestlers capacity to draw fans and money is dictated by a large number of additional external variables outside of the talent of the individual in question. Just to rattle a short and by no means conclusive list off of the top of my head;
A wrestlers capacity to draw is effected by;
Booking: A wrestler who wins a lot will draw far batter than one who doesn't. To use your man Hogan as an example, then Hulkster was given a win/loss record not seen since Ed Louis, and to deny that this assisted him to get, and stay, over; is to kid ones self.
Similarly, a main eventer will pretty much always outdraw a mid carder. Since one has had the benefit of the push, and one hasn't. That doesn't instinctively mean that every main eventer is better then every mid carder. (If they'd given Batista's push to... I dunno... Snitsky, the ratings would have stayed more or less the same)
Gimmick: A small factor, but none the less noteworthy. A wrestler given a good gimmick is going to get over faster, and draw higher, than one with a bad gimmick. Since I used Hogan as my example in the last section, I'll call him up again. Hogan was an all conquering superhero and "real American". Do you think he'd have succeeded and become such an icon if he'd been given then gimmick of... "foot fetishist" or "man with bad teeth".
Market Variables: I don't know shit about how the market affects TV ratings or show attendance or the shifting of merchandise. But I'll bet my right arm that it does.
Product Quality: Year, I've gotten bored of my list so I'm jumping right ahead to the big one. A well written and produced show will draw higher than a crap one, regardless of talent. You could compile a roster of the greatest names throughout history, in there prime. And then hand complete creative control of the product over to... ... Snitsky; and your product would bomb. Probably.
4: Well with 3 chopped up into little pieces, and my attention span officially depleted, I don't much feel like going to town on 4 as well, so I'll just say that there is more a wrestler can do for a company than simply draw. He can for example, not be a dick backstage. A wrestler who draws to the moon is great, but not if he gets in the way of others and sabotages "their" ability to draw.
So year; that's my attempt at de-railing the Slyfox Express train of logic. Now all there is left to do is set back and see if the sofa on the tracks works, or if it just get's sliced in half.
