I find it so peculiar how the Rav's legacy is claimed by so many.
Rabbi Meiselman claims that the Rav was practically Haredi, most consider him revisionist.
My father who sat in his shiur tells me that he was far from the present day YU hashkafa - but others tell me otherwise.
His children were fuming at David Holzer for "thinking out loud" which did just that; publicize private conversations of the Rav. They claim he too was revisionist. But Holzer told me personally that the Rav was not as they make him seem, after all he was meshamesh him for many years (Holzer is by no means Haredi.)
Avi Weiss also claims his movement is in line with the Rav's thought!
What's going on? Was it a strength of the Rav that he could relate to all types? A weakness that he was too vague in the delivery of his message?