There are other factors in wrestling than top, neutral, and bottom.
You can have a guy who's skill or technique at neutral is better than everyone at the weight, but he lacks the horse so against particularly powerful guys may seem outmatched because of it.
One example in this is Finesilver of Michigan and Romero if the Ohio State. Finesilver has more skill at neutral. You wouldn't believe that watching them go at it. They both faced Gavin Kane of North Carolina on the same weekend.
Now Kane isn't as strong as Romero. As far as strength is concerned Romero may be the strongest at the weight - I would consider Brooks and Hidlay to be more powerful, though.
This said, Kane had enough strength to make it so it came down to other aspects of the neutral game to play into determining who was better.
Unless Finesilver can come up with some sort of perfectly modified gameplan, I think Romero tears him apart every time because of the gap in strength being insurmountable. Finesilver may beat Kane worse than Romero might, though.
So in considering these things, as well as the other aspects of both offense and defense for each position and it becomes a complicated measure to measure top, neutral, and bottom.
Also, factoring that unless their opponent chooses top in a match, it is conceivable that certain gents might never have their bottom game tested, ever.
None of these factor in conditioning or the 'X' factor of real life stresses.
I would say you have seven basic groups of measurement. Speed, Strength, Conditioning, Top, Neutral, and bottom - also the 'X' factor. Top, neutral, and bottom can each be broken doen into three subsidiary groups as well into offense, defense, and skill (technique).
One example where someone might have a rating of 'A+' at neutral offense but a rating of 'C' at neutral defense is Mendez. Byrd and Latona both showed that there were layers of neutral with him. Latona was able to exploit his lack of neutral defense, where Byrd was slower on the trigger, so he could not.
Now we get to the rub of it, and it is why styles make matches.
RBY has elite enough neutral defense and speed to exploit the entire 133lb field, including the distinct #2 Fix. He has at least enough of every other aspect of his game that his speed makes it look like a mismatch, even if the score doesn't indicate it. He doesn't have the aggression Brooks has, so his dominations aren't as apparent if you look at the box score.
Edit: 'X' factor can also be other things as well, such as Spencer Lee's insane grip.