I know this has the benefit of Terry Austin's inks, but still, how is this not up there with the other artists mentioned?

If all superhero comics looked this good, I would be a happy lad. To each their own opinions, but I'll stick with Byrne and Perez as my "Big 2" from when I was growing up.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are pretty much my issues with Byrne, as things progressed.  I was fine with some of the Superman changes, didn't agree on others; but, it wasn't a "You stole my childhood!" moment (I was in college, by that point).  However, the more he touched other characters, the less I was enamored of the work.  I hated his OMAC, didn't think much of his Namor (not a big fan of the character anyway).  His artwork just seemed to get messier and his writing wasn't as appealing as others on the Superman books or other contemporaries of the period.

I did quite like Next Men, to a point, but felt it had some pacing and plotting issues.  Danger Unlimited was fine for what it was.  The one I really enjoyed, at Dark Horse, was The Torch of Liberty, mainly because it had a sense of fun and was a bit more dynamic.  Babe?  Meh.......

I just found his writing less and less interesting and his artwork seemed less than it had been.  he changed techniques, as well as inkers and I didn't think some of them were very successful.  Now, color me surprised when I saw Batman/Captain America.  It was exactly what I used to love about Byrnes work (dynamic, clear & crisp art, good storytelling) particularly because it was FUN!  It worked so well, right down to the hero worship/rivalry between Robin and Bucky, as they would start sniping at each other about their mentors, while their mentors acted like mature adults.

At the same time, his comments about Image, while having valid criticisms at the start, soon degenerated into a very black pot snarking about a pitch kettle and totally missing the irony.  The other Legends guys seemed more interested in just experimenting with greater freedoms, rather than just repeating their past DC or Marvel work, with bad words and sex.  Well, maybe Miller wallowed a bit much in the bad words and sex, but not so much redoing old material (other than thematically).

I also agree that fan attention did go to his head, as did superstar contracts.

I think you could argue that Adams damaged his quite heavily with the whole Continuity body of work and his stuff in later years, at DC; not to mention his kooky theories about the nature of the Earth.

Steranko never really returned, beyond the odd cover, aside from the Superman #400 piece, which repeated the stylings of his Outland adaptation, bit in a story with less development and one that didn't really have to make sense.  Steranko was busier with commercial work and publishing his Mediascene/Prevue magazine.  Steranko didn't help his reputation by not delivering the reprint of Chandler:  Crimson Tide (more than once) and that Steranko:  Graphic Prince of Darkness kind had some people snickering.  Not about his work, but more about his image and the sort of persona he puts on with the public.  Steranko, Alan Moore and Grant Morrison, to me, all seem like they are playing this character for public consumption, which is 90% BS.  With Steranko, thet Vanguard-published special told stories about fights breaking out when his band played a certain song and stories about jealous boyfriends and a few others that tripped my BS radar pretty heavily, just as much as Morrison's claims of using psychedilc drugs for visions and Moore's whole snake-god worship and general posturing to comic-based media.  All three come across to me like they are putting on an act.  In an interview with Comic Book Artist magazine, Ken Bruzenak, who worked with Steranko, before his American Flagg work, kind of confirmed some of that impression.

Adams just seemed to have goofy ideas and you kind of forgave how bad the Continuity stuff was because he past work was so good. Kind of like how people also kind of forgave Wally Wood for how bad some of his later stuff was and his temperment, because his previous work was so good.  Plus, the whole mentoring aspect, which is something Byrne never really had.

As you say, it's subjective. But being groundbreaking to me isn't the only criteria. Yes, Adams ushered in the "Bronze Age" style, totally historically important. Great artist, and while he is known for the Batman and related DC stuff and all that, honestly by the time I started reading comics he was a bit of a footnote. And his old stuff wasn't exactly high on the list for reading even though I always totally admired his style when I did see his names in the credits (love the Kree-Skrull War material in particular, though it was brief). There is no run Adams was on that can compare to say Byrne on X-Men to me. And Steranko I pretty much just associate with those cleverly drawn Nick Fury issues, but can't think of much in terms of any extended runs or much I've wanted to read in general (I also have a nice book on his art though, and do of course see his talent).

Don't get me wrong, Adams and Steranko I think deserve the full credit in terms of their legacies, but while Byrne may not have "influenced" as many artists as an Adams, I'd argue his body of work is overall just as important. Maybe age is a bit of a factor as well, if you grew up during the revolution Adams created you may not have been as impressed with a Byrne down the line. Just like a Jim Lee fan down the line might say you're both crazy, Adams and Byrne don't hold a candle.

Maybe for some, but not for me in this case. Steranko's groundbreaking comic work was published way before I was born and I was a little too young to appreciate Adams' Batman stuff as it was coming out. Byrne's work on Fantastic Four, Alpha Flight, Indiana Jones, Superman etc was all coming out when I was aged 10-15, so the perfect age to appreciate it -- which I certainly did and still do. 14 yo me wouldn't have had a clue who Neal Adams was, much less Jim Steranko, but I would've waxed lyrical about how great John Byrne's art was.

But as an adult, having gotten into the likes of Adams' or Steranko's 60s and 70s work, I can see that it was on a whole other level in terms of its influence and, personally speaking, on an artistic level too. That's not to disparage Byrne...he's a damn good comic artist, but he ain't Adams or Steranko (or Ditko or Romita, to name two other influential and highly skilled artists from before my time).

IIRC, Byrne's primary impetus for creating those cruddy photo-collage Trek comics was to spare him having to draw likenesses, which he's never been good at.

I dunno about anyone else, but that speaks volumes to me about the man as an artist. If someone like Liefeld could learn to eventually draw feet, couldn't someone of Byrne's calibre have learned to draw DeForest Kelley's face without tracing if he was truly dedicated to challenging himself and honing his craft?