ThrillerFan:
None World Champion was above every other in every single aspect of the game nor outside of the game. It's just how it has been.
If Fischer wasn't good enough in closed positions, as they require long term strategical thinking (low piece activity and mobility), he made it up by excelling in so many others. Even Kasparov wasn't the best at those (ask Kramnik). Then again, none compares to Kasparov's handling of piece activity. Not even with Karpov's keen sense for positional nuances.
Of course, if you discard Fischer because his lack of sportsmanship (which isn't something we see over the board), it's entirely your choice.
I think you are mistaking about Kasparov! Kasparov has squeezed so many opponents in the Queen's Gambit, and many mistake him as being "just like Fischer" and playing 1.e4 all the time. He just as often played 1.d4, and was able to grind out numerous wins from slow, positional games. People think of Kasparov as just a wild attacker because of his masterpieces in the Najdorf, the King's Indian earlier in his career, and the Grunfeld later in his career.
This is also why I put Spassky at 2. He introduced the concept of the "Universal Player". You want wild tactics? He's ready! You want to grind it out? He's ready! He could take any position and your odds of beating him were slim to none.
Close the position on Fischer and he collapses. His sportsmanship was basically the tie-breaker between him and Botvinnik at the bottom of the list. Kasparov and Spassky top the list from their ability to play any position in the world. Karpov had the deepest positional understanding of the game, and being able to withstand what he did in many of his games, especially those in the Caro-Kann with 4...Nd7 where one slip-up and he'd have been dead, whereas there is no endurance factor in wild, tactical games. It's one calculation and bam, game over. It's like the sprint of fantasy football as opposed to the long, grind-it-out effort it takes to win in 6 months of fantasy baseball on a daily basis. Then Petrosian, with his strength in defense, as aspect of the game that 99% of amateurs fail in, and is the typical weakness of most players.
Then when it came to Botvinnik and Fischer, basically a tie for 5th IMHO, the fact that Fischer was an a$$hole put Botvinnik at 5!
And if you can't tell, another reason I don't have Tal up there is I rate endurance higher than flash!
According to Kramnik, Kasparov excels on all position(even if it is closed).
Care to elaborate on that remark? As it contradicts Kramnik's strategy in their match.
That is Kramnik implying Kasparov at his best. But if Kasparov is not at his best, there might be a chink in Kasparov's armor as Kramnik implied.