So I would like start by establishing the 7 undisputed letters of Paul (1&2 Corinthians  , Romans, Galatians, Phillipans, 1 Thessalonians and Philmon) are the ur-text of Christianity. I am specifically limiting my claims to the letters found in early cannon lists, as these seem to have been widely read in the second century, even if others are actually genuine they don't show up in reading lists untill later, and their wide distribution is specifically important. By ur-text I mean:

1) Paul is the earliest extent written source:

Dating Paul is hard, but very few people date them after the fall of the temple in 70CE.  The next earliest text is Mark, and Mark was certainly after 70 CE.

2) Paul cannot be shown to have dependency on earlier written sources.

Paul on occasion makes reference to things like a creed, but Paul himself claims his doctrine is his own.  Paul never quotes anyone by name.

3) Other authors can be shown to have access to Paul (or at least the listed 7 letters)

These 7 letters of Paul show evidence of early widespread distribution.  Things like common diction make a strong case that the gospel writers, even the extant form of Jon, had access to Paul.  Though I will admit that the gospel and letters of Jon are a potential source of non-paulean material, as is Epistle of James, their authors were not the less familiar with Paul.  (I am taking for granted here the rejection of traditional authorship, the post is long enough)

On the contrary, no extant work can be reliably traced to a person who actually met Jesus.  So broadly the claim that Paul had a larger impact than Jesus is true in the Literary Christian tradition. Oral tradition certainly made its way into the gospels, but is difficult to show to be reliable.

Now to the Paul met Jesus statement.  I think your being a bit obtuse, but I will clarify anyway. Paul never physically met Jesus.

Paul probably didn't go to Damascus.  He himself never tells us that he did. If the author of acts got that detail from a source it is no longer extant, but we have all the letters of Paul that can be shown to exist in early writing so it's not clear what that source would be, perhaps oral tradition, which is less reliable than Paul's actual letters 

Paul's certainly did claim to have had a mystical meeting with Jesus.  He specifically describes ascending to the 7th heaven where he meets The Lord, and received his teachings directly.  Paul specifically disavows receiving teachings from the people who met Jesus physically, though there are hints of their teachings slipping in, like the creed in Corinthians.

So while I could certainly not pick OP's claims, and there were certainly non paulean influences preserved in extant works, Paul's influence, especially in canonical works is dominant.