Why is it that May is seen as better than Sir Everton Weekes in the 50's. Weekes was the better batsman.
I think it has to do more with valuable factor. If we compare Weekes' scores to May's as which had more impact and contributed more to the team's winnings, May edges Weekes.
Some of the tons made by Weekes were somewhat overshadowed by other two Ws, Worrell and Walcott's contribution too or resulted in a drawn match.
For example,
Weekes 129 vs Eng, Worrell scored 261
Weekes 139 vs Aus, Walcott scored a century too
Weekes 206 vs Eng, Worrell scored 167 and Walcott scored a century too. Weekes played a valuable role in the series to give WI 3-1 against Trueman, Statham and Laker scoring 90* and 94 with that double ton. After he hit three centuries against NZ in 1956, his form declined.
On the other hand, May was reaching his prime in 1954. Under Hutton, May played a major role in retaining Ashes facing Lindwall and Davidson. In 1955, May had a great series against South Africa scoring 112, 117 against Adcock, Heine and Tayfield. Then against Australia in 1956, his average was around 90 on tough pitches.
Weekes and May run very close but I think for the quality of scores and match winning contributions, May just edges Weekes for 1950s season.