Nor did he put Falco or Doc, which is a complete joke as theory and practice wise they are for sure,100%, low tier.
I swear he did that just to seem "different" for more views. Idk. But to think either of them are low tier is pretty absurd. I even think Zard is better/has more potential then those two.
And Shulk of course isn't going to be low tier cause "Potential" and Zero uses him. Didnt he put him upper mid last time? Ridiculous.
I just don't really agree with Zero's list so far, except for the fact that he put default Swordsman last. That character I think really is the worst. At least he has a super powerful uair, i guess.
Don'tThrowShotsDon'tThrowShotsDon'tThrowShots
I'd honestly like to know your reasoning for why you think Doc being not low tier is farfetched when you don't think characters like Charizard or Kirby aren't farfetched to not see in Low Tier.
It might be a get out of jail card argument, but Doc's probably one of the characters that has the least defendable case of maining the character, since 2 fairly close characters are higher up. This leads into a severe lack of Doc mains, so pointing at the lack of results of Doc is kind of like shooting an ambulance, even though as you can guess, they're pretty bad..
The character's reasonable neutral against some characters ( mostly those that can't quite outlame Doc, overwhelm or keep him out hard enough, doc's anti zoning-projectile ability is also something that needs more praise, the cape is seriously an insane tool and the SH AC it brings is honestly one of the biggest redeeming qualities of Doc ), very strong advantage state ( quite underrated, people still don't get how consistent & simple Doc throw combos are, you have pretty much guarranted 25% or more combos at most% via simple moves like Usmash at low%, or RAR Bair, sometimes x2 ,a kill confirm, outstanding mixups via access to effective frametrapping by abusing autocancels on aerials or low FAF to connect an UpB or something else, decent edgeguading via Tornado/Pills/Bair which all have their own merit, reasonable ledge trapping via Tornado and non commital baits with SH FF Aerials ) and somewhat decent disadvantage state ( we've grown & improved our landing options, mostly via B Reverse Cape which is a great option at our disposal to shift direction, Doc's recovery isn't good but thinking it is fatal to Doc's viability is a huge mistake, you can still recover off of most hits, it's usually quite linear but so are a lot of recoveries like Falcon or Robin, which some charas exceed at punishing: it's more matchup dependant than you think and against a majority of the cast, Doc should & can make it back ) grants him matchups that are among the best & most valuable among the lower half of the cast. The character has a very fair shot at fighting Mario, Fox, Pikachu, Megaman,Villager and a couple other characters that are more or less relevant. The niche Doc has to offer for counterpick, coupled with nasty tricks that can be pulled off to punish inexperience make the character about as acceptable as Kirby, which in my opinion is a very close character in terms of what's right & what's wrong, only that Kirby's good matchup lean more towards the fastfallers that may not be able to play the full extend of their game against Kirby, or Kirby has access specifically to excellent tools for the matchup in question. Either way, i strongly believe these two characters are not exceptional, but decent characters that mainly have shown to be effective as counterpicks, more than solo picks, due to how both of them get overwhelm'd fairly easily by characters that specializes or can efficiently wall out the opponent.
This ultimately leads into the deviation Doc has seen in terms of thoughts on his viability, and the reason i've created this post as an answer to yours, which made me wonder: How high can you rate a character who's viability has been mostly showcased via counterpicking specific characters, rather than accomplishments of solo mains/mains of said character? I've always felt that in regard, Kirby & Doc were very similar characters, so that's why i'm asking this to you.
Charizard differs quite a bit from these two but i've never had the feeling that Zard was an outstanding character, then again i'm probably not informed enough to seriously talk about Zard, so correct me if i'm wrong at any time. Zard's lack of accomplishment at a high level kind of hurts the vision of people on the Red Lizardragon, i've never really heard any claim of Zard having a fair shot against any top tier threat. The advantage state of the character is rather good but a step down from the more viable heavies even though it shines in some aspects, like at edgeguarding linear low recoveries. The neutral game i feel is kind of bad for the fact that i've always felt most of Zard's move had some kind of counterplay attached to them, like Fair's not the safest of moves, Nair can get overwhelm'd by trades with the fast aerial pokes of characters like Diddy/Sheik & so on, Zard's Jab is good but isn't the ranged poke that Bowser's is, and so on. Disadvantage state is mostly kind of eh, like every heavyweight. So yeah, i'd like to know why Charizard mains or other optimistic people about the character have to say to convince me that this character isn't quite at least equally viable as the two charactes mentionned above, or maybe even worse. Quite frankly, much like i may have done to a bunch of you, i do not pretend to be entirely aware of Zard's options, so sorry for any mistake.