People have different definitions of what "the best" is in sparring. I could beat six people that Qes can't beat, and then Qes could beat me and the majority of iClassic players would say he's better than me (just as an example).

That's never really how I've thought of "the best." For me it's always been looking at which sparrers can beat the most number of highly-skilled sparrers, consistently. There are players who I find difficult to beat that I'd say sparrers who are much "worse" than me seem to beat relatively easily, etc.

I don't really have a list to share because it'd be a boring list with no surprises, but people need to look at the big picture when they are judging other sparrers. Everyone will occassionally spar very poorly. On my way to try and go 1000-18 (to get 10000-999), I started 500-5 and ended 228-13.
If you beat someone in a spar, it doesn't suggest you are "a better sparrer" than them, it means that you beat them in a spar. Even if you beat someone in a series, it means dirt. It means you were better than them during the 10 minutes that you sparred.

My rant isn't pointless and I only say these things because of how poor the attitudes and egos of the sparring community are. When you lose, shut up. You lost. It doesn't matter if they lagged, walled, whatever. You lost a minute-long spar because you couldn't micromanage and outplay the person you were sparring. Don't make any excuse or whine about it, it just makes you look a lot worse.