Except DT’s 2 titles were not a function of a shortened career . . . he and Ruth competed the same number of years . . . so Steveson’s abbreviated 3-yr career is not applicable to the debate.
If all else is equal (e.g., number of years competing, level of competition, number of matches, etc.), then a 3x champ should indeed be rated above a 2x champ. So, in a DT vs Ruth debate, the places to look for discussion are where conditions were different between the two guys. Number of years competing is not one of those.
Instead, one could say DT had to beat an eventual 4x champ, and Ruth didn’t. Another could say Ruth may have been 4x champ (or at least 3x champ, 4x finalist) if not for the knee injury during 2011 quarters, while DT stayed healthy during all 4 Nationals in which he competed.
One could say DT won Hodges, and Ruth didn’t. That could be a fair point, but I wouldn’t get behind it. Vote-based awards are always vulnerable to politics, and not all Hodge criteria relate to performance on the mat. Right out of the gate, it was clear who the Golden Boy was going to be during their careers. Maybe that was fair, maybe not. 🤷♂️