Who is Ash's 7th strongest/best pokemon?

[PokemonBattleFanatic-]

Who do you think is Ash's 7th best pokemon after Charizard,Pikachu,Sceptile,Greninja,Snorlax,and Infernape?

 

[Navin]

RIP Versus Thread where this could have been discussed instead.

There is no "7th strongest/best" that can reliably be agreed upon. This is why 'tiers' were brought up years ago. Guys like Krookodile, Bulbasaur, Swellow, Glalie, Gliscor, Heracross, Kingler, maybe Hawlucha all have claims (though perhaps Krookodile, Bulbasaur, and Swellow have more to show for it) for it. There are some match-ups each can succeed in that some of the others cannot. Krookodile is probably regarded as the Unova regional ace, so by default, it might be him, even though Bulbasaur and Swellow have better feats/consistency.

 

[Genaller]

This has already been done and Krookodile won by a landslide (look at the last post): http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...Pokemon&highlight=Strongest+non-GPICSS+thread

While Bulbasaur may have the best non-GPICSS feat, the writer intent (Quizes in XYZ 40 and 43) was very clear that Krookodile is in the same “club” as the likes of Charizard, Sceptile, Infernape and Greninja. In all likelihood if the writers actually did assemble Ash’s “best” team, they would probably do GPICKS instead of GPICSS, and the main reason we fans put Snorlax instead is because we can justify more with Snorlax since he has better feats.

 

[Pokegirl Fan~]

RIP Versus Thread where this could have been discussed instead.

There is no "7th strongest/best" that can reliably be agreed upon. This is why 'tiers' were brought up years ago. Guys like Krookodile, Bulbasaur, Swellow, Glalie, Gliscor, Heracross, Kingler, maybe Hawlucha all have claims (though perhaps Krookodile, Bulbasaur, and Swellow have more to show for it) for it. There are some match-ups each can succeed in that some of the others cannot. Krookodile is probably regarded as the Unova regional ace, so by default, it might be him, even though Bulbasaur and Swellow have better feats/consistency.

Using tiers isn't a good way to determine how strong a Pokemon is mostly because of writing inconsistencies. It's pretty much similar to power levels in dragon ball to where it's way too inconsistent to determine which character is stronger.

Anyways I'll go with Bulbasaur because of its feats.

 

[Genaller]

Anyways I'll go with Bulbasaur because of its feats.

Y’know “tiering” is basically just determining where Pokémon stack relative to each other based on a number of factors with one of the primary ones being... wait for it... feats! By saying that Bulbasaur is above all of those other Pokémon cuz of feats, you have just taken part in TIERING!!! Pokegirl Fan~; I hereby welcome you to the dark side of this forum that is Pokémon Tiering Muhahaha.....

 

[satopi]

I chose Krokodile. Big guy can take out the others.

 

[Xenon Blue]

The safe answer is Krookodile, not because of what he has done, but rather what he has not done. All the other candidates other than Glalie showed some form of blunder one way or another, while Krookodile is consistently solid and is regarded as the Unova ace. Granted, like Glalie and Kingler, Krookodile doesn't have as many battles as the likes of Swellow or Bulbasaur, who has better feats but equally has more blunders, so it's hard to judge in that respect.

 

[Genaller]

The safe answer is Krookodile, not because of what he has done, but rather what he has not done. All the other candidates other than Glalie showed some form of blunder one way or another, while Krookodile is consistently solid and is regarded as the Unova ace. Granted, like Glalie and Kingler, Krookodile doesn't have as many battles as the likes of Swellow or Bulbasaur, who has better feats but equally has more blunders, so it's hard to judge in that respect.

I’ll just add that Krookodile also has a leg up on Glalie since while Glalie as a Glalie never had a true loss, Krookodile as a Krookodile didn’t faint even once.

 

[ash&charizardfan]

I pick krokodile, it was considered as ace by anime team itself when they place him with other aces. His tier 2 team placings should be-
Krokodile> Swellow> Bulbasur=Heracross>Glalie= Kingler>Gliscor> Talonflame> Hawlucha

Using tiers isn't a good way to determine how strong a Pokemon is mostly because of writing inconsistencies. It's pretty much similar to power levels in dragon ball to where it's way too inconsistent to determine which character is stronger.

Anyways I'll go with Bulbasaur because of its feats.

You are right, anime is to inconsistent but it is an hypothetical condition which pokemon is considered stronger than others and if followed by games which is more consistent. Dragon blaa is not the only anime pretty much every anime has power inconsistencies.

 

[Genaller]

I pick krokodile, it was considered as ace by anime team itself when they place him with other aces. His tier 2 team placings should be-
Krokodile> Swellow> Bulbasur=Heracross>Glalie= Kingler>Gliscor> Talonflame> Hawlucha

- God Tier
(Ash-)Greninja

- Tier-0
Peakachu, Charizard, (Blaze) Infernape, Sceptile

- Tier-1
Snorlax, Krookodile, Bulbasaur, Heracross

- Tier-2
Swellow, Gliscor, Hawlucha, Glalie, Kingler, Squirtle, Gible, Talonflame, Torkoal*, Goodra**

- Tier-3
Goodra**, Torterra, Pignite, Buizel, Corphish, Quilava, Bayleef, Leavanny, Staraptor, Noivern, Tauros, Noctowl

- Tier-4
Donphan, Palpitoad, Snivy, Muk***

- Tier-5
Scraggy, Boldore, Unfezzant, Totodile, Oshawatt

* Without the Registeel feat Torkoal would be Tier-4/Tier-5, and based on the Darkrai showing Torkoal is way below Heracross and also capped by Gible

** Where Goodra tiers in a given match depends on its opponent since Bide (a move Goodra heavily relies on) is completely dependent on A) the power of the opponent’s attacks and B) the rate at which the opponent uses attacks while Goodra is charging up Bide

*** There is insufficient information to accurately tier Muk since it’s only taken part in 2 matches. In the first 1 it beat an OP Bellsprout; however, the battle was treated like a gag, and in the 2nd 1 it was at best a minor inconvenience for Blastoise and Scizor with Charizard likely not having needed Muk to beat them though on the flip side it did tank multiple attacks from Gary’s 2 best Pokemon in that match at a time when OHKs were common place.

Note: I’ve arranged the Pokémon within each tier from left to right in descending order with respect to my personal view of their relative “battle viability”.

 

[Navin]

I pick krokodile, it was considered as ace by anime team itself when they place him with other aces. His tier 2 team placings should be-
Krokodile> Swellow> Bulbasur=Heracross>Glalie= Kingler>Gliscor> Talonflame> Hawlucha

If you're able to rank them, then that defeats the purpose of a "tier" (not specifically calling you out, but in general PAD has ruined this concept some bit). All of these guys are more than capable of beating one another, and succeeding in match-ups that others cannot.

 

[345ash-greninja]

If you're able to rank them, then that defeats the purpose of a "tier" (not specifically calling you out, but in general PAD has ruined this concept some bit). All of these guys are more than capable of beating one another, and succeeding in match-ups that others cannot.

On a particular bad day for a Pokemon, a weaker Pokemon can defeat the stronger one, like Avalugg defeating Ash-Greninja, Bulbasaur loosing to Skiploom, Grovyle loosing to Luvdisc, Slurpuff tying to Goodra etc. etc. but that doesn't anyhow mean that Pokemon can't be tiered based on their overall feats. Tiers are basically an estimate of a Pokemon's strength relative to one another.

Just because one Pokemon is capable of beating another Pokemon on a given day due to some specific reasons like trainer folly/trainer not optimally commanding a Pokemon/being overconfident or other factors doesn't anyhow mean that they are on par. Otherwise Avulugg would be on par with A-G, and Ephraim's Skiploom would be on par with Bulbasaur.

 

[Navin]

Tiers are basically an estimate of a Pokemon's strength relative to one another.

I think the guy who started the concept in the first place knows what it means, lol.

Just because one Pokemon is capable of beating another Pokemon on a given day due to some specific reasons like trainer folly/trainer not optimally commanding a Pokemon/being overconfident or other factors doesn't anyhow mean that they are on par. Otherwise Avulugg would be on par with A-G, and Ephraim's Skiploom would be on par with Bulbasaur.

BTW, Wulfric nerfed himself in the rematch when he abandoned the Avalugg Ice Body strategy.

The point is that it's difficult to say who's better than whom when all of these Pokemon, assuming they're already relatively close in power, can beat one another and can succeed in certain match-ups that the others cannot. Sceptile and Snorlax can beat Charizard and Ash-Greninja >2/10 in non-fluke battles, so that's why they're all grouped together and considered on par; Totodile cannot. That's why this concept exists; it becomes pointless when you can start ranking everybody from 1-40, which is impossible because of match-ups, type-(dis)advantages, movepools, consistency, etc.


NOTE:

The safe answer is Krookodile, not because of what he has done, but rather what he has not done. All the other candidates other than Glalie showed some form of blunder one way or another, while Krookodile is consistently solid and is regarded as the Unova ace. Granted, like Glalie and Kingler, Krookodile doesn't have as many battles as the likes of Swellow or Bulbasaur, who has better feats but equally has more blunders, so it's hard to judge in that respect.

The problem, or benefit depending on your point of view, with Krookodile is that if he was in a different series then he wouldn't be considered Unova's "ace" because of his lack of better feats. Put him in AG and he looks no better than Swellow or Glalie.

 

[Genaller]

I think the guy who started the concept in the first place knows what it means, lol.

Actually the concept of rating characters in a given series relative to each other in terms of some metric (usually related to strength) long pre-dates any of us.

The point is that it's difficult to say who's better than whom when all of these Pokemon, assuming they're already relatively close in power, can beat one another and can succeed in certain match-ups that the others cannot. Sceptile and Snorlax can beat Charizard and Ash-Greninja >2/10 in non-fluke battles, so that's why they're all grouped together and considered on par; Totodile cannot. That's why this concept exists; it becomes pointless when you can start ranking everybody from 1-40, which is impossible because of match-ups, type-(dis)advantages, movepools, consistency, etc.

Well then that’s where I and others would respectfully disagree. Based on my assessment at least I don’t think say Snorlax is close in “battle viability” (an aggregation of stats and other factors that benefit a Pokémon’s aggregate competency in battle) to the other 5 in Ash’s “best” team, hence I don’t think it could beat any of them > 2 out of 10. I agree with the idea that the reason for placing multiple Pokémon in a singular rating should be because it’s very difficult to tell who’s better beyond the claim that they’re all very close to each other. The reason I made sub tiers is because I thought that your original system failed in this objective as I felt that there were in fact clear significant disparities even amongst certain Pokémon who were in the same tier. In the end the sub tier variant of my tiering works the same as yours in that it’s absurdly tough in saying with confidence as to who’s better between 2 Pokémon with the same rating with the difference being that your system has 5 ratings and mine has 16.

EDIT: So if I modeled my system more like a “Maldreadian tier system” (start with the number 1 and go up with a higher number indicating a lower rating where a Pokémon of a higher rating should have definitively greater aggregate “battle viability” than a Pokémon of a lower rating and Pokémon of the same rating are close enough such that it would be pointless in trying to figure out who’s actually better; in addition the disparity between consecutive ratings can vary), then it goes:

- Tier-1
(Ash-)Greninja

- Tier-2
Peakachu

- Tier-3
Charizard, (Blaze) Infernape

- Tier-4
Sceptile

- Tier-5
Snorlax

- Tier-6
Krookodile, Bulbasaur

- Tier-7
Heracross

- Tier-8
Swellow, Gliscor

- Tier-9
Hawlucha, Glalie, Kingler, Squirtle, Gible

- Tier-10
Talonflame, Torkoal, Goodra

- Tier-11
Torterra, Pignite, Buizel, Corphish

- Tier-12
Quilava, Bayleef, Leavanny, Staraptor

- Tier-13
Noivern, Tauros, Noctowl

- Tier-14
Donphan, Palpitoad

- Tier-15
Snivy, Muk

- Tier-16
Scraggy, Boldore, Unfezzant, Totodile, Oshawatt

Of course having superior aggregate battle viability doesn’t guarantee that you’ll definitely win against Pokémon of lower ratings since several other factors need to be considered when determining match-up compatibility.

 

[Navin]

EDIT: So if I modeled my system more like a “Maldreadian tier system” (start with the number 1 and go up with a higher number indicating a lower rating where a Pokémon of a higher rating should have definitively greater aggregate “battle viability” than a Pokémon of a lower rating and Pokémon of the same rating are close enough such that it would be pointless in trying to figure out who’s actually better; in addition the disparity between consecutive ratings can vary), then it goes:

Well, no "Maldreadian tier system" of mine ever went up to "Tier-16"(Ash-Greninja is not 16 tiers above Unfezant lmao). That becomes too much. It was never meant to be thought too hard either, because as Pokegirl Fan says, too much of this show is riddled by the whims of the writing and its inconsistency.

Using tiers isn't a good way to determine how strong a Pokemon is mostly because of writing inconsistencies. It's pretty much similar to power levels in dragon ball to where it's way too inconsistent to determine which character is stronger.

Youre' right. Everything is up to the whims of the writers. But generally speaking, they do tend to have some consistency (example: Sceptile being the one to defeat Darkrai as opposed to Gible, or Snorlax never having a bad performance). I think most people would tend to agree Charizard is one of Ash's best Pokemon, if not his best. Same idea.

 

[Genaller]

Well, no "Maldreadian tier system" of mine ever went up to "Tier-16"(Ash-Greninja is not 16 tiers above Unfezant lmao). That becomes too much. It was never meant to be thought too hard either, because as Pokegirl Fan says, too much of this show is riddled by the whims of the writing and its inconsistency.

Please properly read the post you are quoting. For starters I very explicitly outlined that those “tiers” did not have equidisparity between them, but merely that Pokémon with a higher rating have superior aggregate “battle viability” to Pokémon with a lower rating and it’s unclear who’s better between Pokémon with the same rating to me at least. You don’t really have any basis for claiming that 5 isn’t too many but 16 is, though it’s fine if that’s what you think (like how I think your tier system fails to accomplish its intended goal). Yeah this anime is inconsistent; that’s not new information and that’s why when the writers acknowledge Ash’s “Ace” Pokémon (Zard, Ape, Scep, Krook, Gren along with Pikachu who’s the universal Ace and was conveniently also shown during those quizzes), it’s pretty clear that they would currently be the members comprising a hypothetical Ash’s “best team” hence why I gave Snorlax and Krookodile the same rating eventhough by pure feats Snorlax should be better (speaking of which the number of assumptions I need in order to claim “Snorlax has better feats” is staggeringly high; I mean what reliable way is there to compare say Clair’s Kingdra and Iris’s Dragonite? What about Greta’s Medicham and Stephan’s Sawk? The answer is there is no way to do this without first making several baseline assumptions which will differ from person to person and hence of course different people will end up having different results which is fine; the most constructive avenue of discussion for such topics would be first to reflect on the assumptions you need in order to make your comparisons work, list them out, and then explain why, at least for you, do these assumptions seem fair; if critically examining the assumptions behind your own and others’ intuitive conclusions is “thinking too hard”, then sure I think too hard though there’s nothing inherently wrong with that if I’m enjoying the process).

 

[PokemonBattleFanatic-]

I think the guy who started the concept in the first place knows what it means, lol.

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthread.php?453294-Put-Ash-s-Pokemon-into-Tiers

 

[Navin]

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showthread.php?453294-Put-Ash-s-Pokemon-into-Tiers

Fine, technically not the first, but it really didn't get much traction until a few years later considering people were still straight up doing 1-# rankings.

You don’t really have any basis for claiming that 5 isn’t too many but 16 is, though it’s fine if that’s what you think (like how I think your tier system fails to accomplish its intended goal).

I would think it's absurd considering no Pokemon of Ash's is "16 tiers" above the other. There is disparity among Ash's Pokemon, but not staggering so, and most are relatively close to one another, hence why 5 is the max I'd go. It's really just "Who are the best?"; "Who are the 'B-teamers'?"; "Who are part of the clump in the middle?"; "Who's at the lower end?"; and "Who are the considered the worst?"

 

[Genaller]

I would think it's absurd considering no Pokemon of Ash's is "16 tiers" above the other. There is disparity among Ash's Pokemon, but not staggering so, and most are relatively close to one another, hence why 5 is the max I'd go. It's really just "Who are the best?"; "Who are the 'B-teamers'?"; "Who are part of the clump in the middle?"; "Who's at the lower end?"; and "Who are the considered the worst?"

Again you’re missing the point. I don’t know if you’re not properly reading what I’m saying or if you’re just strawmannirg. If we’re definiing a “tier” as a rating where it’s genuinely unclear who’s better between Pokémon of the same rating and there’s no fixed disparity between consecutive ratings, then as far as I’m concenred, your tiering fails at that objective. I’ve always had about those many ratings in my system with the only difference being that I defined them as “sub tiers” instead; nothing has actually changed in my views concerning relative disparity between Ash’s Pokémon. Although if we’re going with the definition in the quote, then there shouldn’t be any issue with people having rankings within “tiers” since there can still exist significant disparities in all of the broad categories you mentioned.

EDIT: Anyways the answer to this thread is Krookodile and it’s debatable that he could even be 6th. Bulbasaur vs Heracross vs Swellow would be a more interesting thread.

 

[Gamzee Makara]

Tiers are as bad for competitive video games on Smogon as they are for anime.

Let it go:RNG is the Elder God-Tier in ALL Pokémon media. Even Ash-Greninja can't beat RNG.