No, i am probably on the old side. I enjoyed Hugo's play a lot, but i'd still rate him below Felipe and JMH. In fact from that generation, i prefered Martin Sansot but i am biased and that prolly merits another thread. Porta was a gem, no doubt, but not the best in my book.
Felipe was, imo, the most influential player in Arg's rugby, bar none. More than Porta, more than Pichot. His winning mentality was instrumental for the Pumas and that was, imo, because he was part of a fantastic generation of young players who were the first to beat the ABs at youth levels (destroyed england and South Africa too, only lost to Australia who had a pretty spectacular generation too). Him, his brother, Gaitan, Oso Galli, Corleto, Sanchez Sinny, Roncero.
And Felipe was a natural leader. He was the kind of player than when in a 1v1 defensively, you knew they would not score, and when he was 1v1 offensively, he would. He was not outstanding at anything, but he was very, very good at everything (except that one missed kick against the ABs).
JMH at his peak was phenomenal. Sheer raw talent, he was probably our best, ever. He wasn't as good a decision-maker as Felipe, not even close imo and he was not a leader either. Sure, people listened to him and most will tell you watch this or that game to proe me wrong. Those games where when he was on the old side, already a reference player. Felipe was again, kind of a commander from day 1. This is a natural thing. Porta had it, Pichot had it, Felipe had it in spades. JMH did not.
But when you look at moments of brilliance, he's got quite a lot of those.
Another thing and this is personal; i tend to rate defensive play a lot and both JMH and Felipe were outstanding tacklers who never shied away from a contest. Never. Hugo was not a particularly good tackler.