Whether the modern orthodox movement has or should have a categorically distinct type of psak or posek is an assumption worth examining, but for now, let’s let the assumption stand. One of my son’s Rebbeim refers to a certain YU Rosh Yeshiva as a “modern orthodox gadol.” I don’t know if he could define what makes the individual in question “modern orthodox,” but not being able to define what makes something different doesn’t mean one can’t recognize that there is indeed a difference. So let’s play along and accept that there is a difference and ask ourselves the following question: it’s been 20 years since Rabbi Wurtzburger’s article appeared. The Rav is no longer with us. Is there a present day posek for modern orthodoxy? Is there in fact a "modern orthodox gadol?"I would argue that if we use Rabbi Wurtzburger’s criteria for what made the Rav into the posek of the modern orthodox community, namely, 1) his endorsement of secular studies; 2) his espousal of religious Zionism; and 3) his being a pioneer of intensive Jewish education for women, then there is no one in the diaspora who has successfully followed in the Rav’s footsteps. That is not to say that there are not great talmidei chachamim and poskim within the modern orthodox community – there certainly are. But if Rabbi Wurthburger’s measure of what made the Rav unique is accurate, then it seems to me that these other poskim are no more uniquely modern orthodox than a rebbe ordained in Lakewood who happens to teach in a modern orthodox yeshiva high school is. We have poskim for modern orthodoxy, but I don't know if we have any truly modern orthodox posek.
Without naming names, even without the migration of some of the senior Roshei Yeshiva in YU to Touro, anyone who has attended YU will recognize that many of the Roshei Yeshiva are more sympathetic to a Touro-like philosophy of Torah u’Secular-studies-for-the-sake-of-making-a-Living than Torah u’Mada. (I think it is fair to say that Touro and its philosophy sits at least in the outer orbit of the RW world while YU does not.) I can't see any of them endorsing the study of secular philosophy for its own sake, something that Rabbi Wurtzburger identifies as a sign of the Rav's openness. While Rabbi Avi Weiss and a few others have been very vocal in advancing women’s issues, these figures have largely been marginalized and pushed to the fringe by a much stronger center/right-wing contingent within modern orthodoxy, and besides which, I think Rabbi Avi Weiss would himself acknowledge that he is not a go-to posek for the larger community. I don't see any major Roshei Yeshiva or poskim going to Stern to deliver a lomdus-packed shiur to make the point that it could/should be done. It is only in support of religious Zionism that I think the likes of Rav Hershel Shachter and others distinguish themselves from their colleagues outside the modern orthodox world. A one for three batting average is OK if you are playing baseball, but I don’t know if it says much if we are weighing commitment to a particular philosophy such as modern orthodoxy.
Debating whether Rabbi Ploni or Rabbi Almoni fits the bill invites too much ad hominum discussion. I would be more interested in what criteria you would use -- other than those given by Rabbi Wurtzburger in judging whether the Rav was a modern orthodox posek -- to assess whether someone fits the bill. Perhaps the modern orthodoxy communtity of 2014 sees itself differently than the community of 1994 and therefore attaches itself to Rabbinic figures with different values than those identified by Rabbi Wurtzburger. Perhaps we are truly in a post-modern orthodox period, though in a far different sense than Rabbi Wurtzburger meant.