Also, there isn't such a huge difference in my mind between a player rated 1800 and a player rated as NM, especially if the 1800 player is on their way up and just hasn't played the games yet and the NM has peaked and on the way down.
That's just rediculous. There's a huge change in the understanding of chess that makes up 400 rating points. If you're a 2200 player who just hasn't played enough games to get a 2200 rating that's one thing, but I see declining (even floored) masters take apart 'improving' 18-2000 players over and over again. Sure the master can slip up every now and then and lose a game, but the planning, endgame knowledge, etc. difference is substantial.
I only the see the difference as knowledge gained through experience and victories of course for the most part, but it doesn't necessarily take more wins though, to have relatively the same level of understanding. If was a prerequisite, there were many players who cheated logics indomitable grip. I realize that, this usually isn't manifest in most players, but it is obvious that some rise more quickly than others, in more than just ratings, but also true ability and it's accompanying understanding.
Since you seem to be quite adept in knowing the differences between them , why haven't you converted that knowledge along with your nearly NM level blitz rating into a USCF NM title? Or maybe you only think you know the difference, " as it exists in your mind" ? Or is there another reason for these circumstances you don't care to comment on ?
Consider those rhetorical questions. I am not going to waste my time trying to reason through anymore of this. Maybe if you stopped putting NM's on a pedestal compared to yourself, you'd be one, unless of course there is another reason you aren't able to get there.
The "achievements", recognitions players got are not always proportional to their capabilities or "greatness". They are related to circumstances, environments and a bunch of other factors including luck. A 1800 level do not have the capacity to gauge their standards or talents - only masters have that.
With all due respect, it is obvious that a rather accurate conclusion can be drawn as to where to rate the past champions, based upon the data from their play. I realize there is some margin for error. However, I prefer to look at that possible fluctuation, as the same as, luck. They are both something you can't really account for, other than the fact they exist and effect things somewhat.
Also, there isn't such a huge difference in my mind between a player rated 1800 and a player rated as NM, especially if the 1800 player is on their way up and just hasn't played the games yet and the NM has peaked and on the way down.
It is some what speculative to conclude which of these players was the best, or better than one another based on studies of the data from the games of these players, their styles and choices of preferred lines of play. However, I think the thing that gets over looked is that what we consider " most brilliant" is the key. It, in it's self is opinion. It hold's more merit to us than wins and losses in a certain way, yet it is has to be considered. All of this is a bit more complicated than figuring out what to have for lunch, but it still isn't rocket science to form a pretty well rounded opinion, that has it's merits, regardless of whether you are an 1800, an NM, or just as average player.