Originally Posted by
Archimtiros
First off, you know zero details about
Actually he was stopped by a horde of demons, but Gul'dan actually killed him. He knew it was a fight he wasn't going to win... that's why it's called a sacrifice. Regardless, you do understand that strength or skill in battle is not a binary condition right? By your "rules", one thing beating another means it's stronger, period, but that's not how combat works.
Under your stipulations, Varian killed a Fel Reaver, which would imply that he is stronger than a Fel Reaver. Yet he was defeated by "demon meat" Fel Guards, which would imply that the Fel Guards are stronger than a he is. By that logic, you would assume that Fel Guards are stronger than a Fel Reaver... which also isn't true, because circumstance plays a large role in winning or losing.
Half of your basis of ranking is based on arbitrary and unknowable decisions on who would beat who if they fought uninterrupted, but you really have no way of knowing how that would play out. Varo'then didn't beat Broxigar, their duel was interrupted. Certainly Varo'then had the advantage of speed, but Broxigar was physically stronger and more experienced.
The other half of your reasoning is based on conjecture and assumption - "Broxigar survived a battle against demons so he must be strong, Varian died in battle against demons so he must be weak", which is an absolute failure of logic. Hate to break it to you but a lot of the characters on that list survived battles, and others lost them. Doomhammer was killed by a random pikeman at an interment camp, does that mean that pikeman is a "greater Warrior" than Doomhammer? I'd think not. Arbitrarily deciding that the result of one battle or another is more important or "makes a Warrior" more so than another is conjecture by definition.