Tupka's refusal to entertain hypotheticals is highly amusing

Could you imagine if Clark took time to train to the degree as Diana or Bruce? 9 times out of 10 it would be totally unnecessary due to how immensely powerful he is, but it could lead to some epic fight scenes.

Full strength bloodlusted superman with no limits Superman owns 100%

For WW(even without bracelets) to win we need to introduce conditions

Let's break it down further

GA Superman vs WW: if her bracelets come off she goes berserker and probably gains the strength of Supes, but loses her tactical advantage. Competitive fight, but since GA Superman can't bloodlust, WW would probably win

SA Superman vs SA WW: base level WW can't compete with SA supes. Without her bracelets, she loses her tactical advantage, and still can't approach Superman's strength (SA Superman was insanely overpowered). Superman owns easily.

BA Superman vs SA WW: WW is basically same as above, but superman has been de-powered some since the insanity of the silver age. I can't recall a bronze age WW story(help please?) Where WW removed her bracelets, so I'm not sure if she stills go berserk. At some point post-crisis the bracelets simply keep her powers in check, they do not cause berserker mode when removed. Either way, the fight would be competitive, but a Superman without restraints should ultimately win.

Post-crisis: WW vastly increases her strength when bracelets are removed (she is demigod in modern age) but retains her tactical advantage. Superman is technically killable in this era, but she doesn't have an adaptive ability like doomsday. Superman in this era increases his strength proportionate to the person he is fighting, whereas WW should have an upper cap on her powers(it has not been stated otherwise as far as I know). Very competitive, but superman wins.

Now, if we bring in some of the different versions of Superman (superman prime one million, cosmic armour superman) it isn't even remotely competitive. Supes owns.

Finally: WW does not have as many feats as supes to guage her power by. We certainly don't have much to go by to define the upper limits of her strength without bracelets, demigod version. Superman has many(often contradictory but still) feats to go by. And superman is essentially a walking plot device. DC treats him as the ultimate hero, therefore he is.

I agree with you that feats don't necessarily mean anything, but could be relevant depending on the terms of the debate. If it's any version of wonder woman vs any version of Superman, then we don't have head to head battles to parse what may happen. But if we know that certain iterations of a hero can do certain things like punch a moon to death, or freeze atomic motion to almost absolute zero, then we may be able to determine what those abilities could do to an opponent if unleashed.

I do agree with you that if we are talking about a specific iteration of these characters, and they have battled in continuity, then that should take precedence over feats performed in that same era. However, sometimes author biases can even make those battles kind of irrelevant Darkseid is either the big bad of the DC universe or a chump blocker depending on who is writing him *cough* *Jurgens* *cough* and since he exists outside of the multiverse he should be unchanging regardless of era.

To clarify: I am a fan of WW, I am currently reading through Rucka's rebirth run and loving every minute. And I do like the idea of WW being on the level of Superman. We know Bruce has his contingencies to take out WW and Supes, so if WW and Supes are 50-50, then it brings balance to the Trinity. I just think it comes down to author bias somewhat, and that the DC editorial is generally biased towards superman.