Who is more annoying the insulting committee member who prolongs meetings because he likes to hear his own voice but happens to have an excellent record or the same kind of person with a lousy record of teaching and research?
On the one hand, the blowhard with a strong record is annoying because it is harder to object to them and everything they stand for--they are a success, having built a record of excellence. And that can be really frustrating. One can have much fun, taking apart the record of the talentless, unachieving blowhard.
On the other hand, the accomplished blowhard may actually have expertise which justifies their stances, that their comments might have value. The entertainment value of the talentless hack may be marginal, and not overcome the annoyance that they bring to the table.
Of course, whoever unnecessarily prolongs meetings more is obviously the worst.