You are missing the point, and this is why we keep going back to your arguement. Your point is that we should look at pokemon in a vacuum, to ignore the support of other pokemon because they are not relevant or something. The trouble is we have numerous cases of pokemon having support which pushed them over the line. You can argue that Excadrill is more broken than Landorus and thats fine, I don't think many will argue, the point is BOTH these pokemon have support, and this is why your argument fails a little bit, because on the one hand you say "lets ignore the support we give a pokemon but on the other you turn around and say "but please ignore the fact we banned pokemon that abused support to sweep before, its not the same thing I swear!!!!"
I apologise if I am offending you, but it really comes across in your posts as as one rule for Excadrill / Tornadus-T / Swift Swimmers etc and another rule for Landorus-I.
Worth noting that Landorus-I actually gets equal to or LESS support than Tornadus-T as well (Due to Torn enjoying Rain + Dug + prolly Rapid Spin)
Like I said last night, there's a point to measuring the Pokemon's abilities individually. However, let's just put that on hold for the time being. It's funny that you're accusing me of trying to test Landorus in a vacuum when you're doing exactly the same thing for its counters. You're also presuming that once you've removed Latias/Gyarados/Celebi or whatever that Landorus is free to sweep, which is just completely oversimplified. You're also basing Landorus's counters' ability to defeat Landorus when coupled in a combo. That is inherently unfair because you're pitting one Pokemon against two or more. If Landorus uses U-turn, it can't run Rock Polish without losing even further coverage, but lets just pretend you can. Even IF Landorus has eight moveslots and can run Rock Polish along with U-turn, Psychic, Calm Mind and Sludge Wave, you argument still remains flawed. You are still pitting Landorus, with support, against one counter. How about pitting Landorus and Tyranitar against Latias and Terrakion? That would make it more fair, since it's now 2v2. Before you say "well the Landorus team would obviously have Terrakion counters", I'd like to point out that I know this example is flawed, and I have deliberately made it so. You can just as easily say that the Landorus team has Terrakion counters, but obviously the team with Latias on it would also have stuff to beat THOSE Terrakion counters? What are they? We don't know. We really just don't know what each team has. So how do you even come to a judgement about how LANDORUS is broken? You can look at team dynamics all you like, but it's not going to tell you anything about how Landorus itself is broken. This is what I meant when I said you have too many confounding variables when you look at whole team vs team matchups. That was the whole point of my chronic alcoholism and chronic smoking leading to heart disease example. Please don't be Lavos and miss the whole point entirely. The more Pokemon you stack onto your analysis, the more variability you're going to encounter, and it quickly gets to the point where you can't tell anything. If you look at my whole "Tyranitar + Landorus-I, which is more broken" tirade, the point of what I was arguing was not necessarily that Tyranitar was more broken, it was more the fact that when you stack these combos together, you can come to conclusions such as "Tyranitar is broken" just as easily as "Landorus is broken". You get false positives and negatives when you do analysis like this.
So this brings me back to the main point of looking at Landorus individually. Yes, I know I'm temporarily looking at it in a vacuum with just "Landorus vs counter", but really, if you read what I wrote above, you'd understand exactly why. The whole point of isolating Landorus is to look at its impact just by itself. This would give us the clearest picture of what LANDORUS is capable of, without external biases. If you've done any kind of work in study designs or statistical analysis, you'll recognise introducing other factors into a study like this is called
Selection Bias. Looking at Landorus individually reduces this. Back to my alcohol and smoking vs heart disease example, this is why in your selection criteria you need to exclude people with known conditions that also predisposes them to heart disease. It's the same principle here. Why do you think we have a ladder with Landorus and one without? Why not have a ladder where you have Landorus, Keldeo and Pursuit banned and one without? The whole point is to look at how Landorus, as a Pokemon, performs and the effect that it has.
It's really important that you understand this, because it applies everywhere, not just Landorus, not just Pokemon, but in every kind of study that you will potentially conduct or be a part of. This is why I am stressing that Landorus DOES need to be looked at by itself, instead of in a combination.
Well, in fairness, there is one major difference between Genesect and Landorus's U-turn - Landorus almost always carries a Life Orb, and so is worn down fairly quickly if it U-turns repeatedly.
Nonetheless, Landorus doesn't really need to spam U-turn in the same way Genesect did. It only needs to U-turn one of its counters once and it's game over for said counter.
You missed the big elephant in the room, I'm afraid. What about the extreme power difference between Genesect and Landorus's U-turn? Genesect's U-turn got STAB and often a Download boost. Also, I'd like to point out, yet again, that Genesect and Landorus's job was completely different. Genesect spammed U-turn. Therefore, in the sense that if you name a counter as a Pokemon that can stop Genesect from what it's doing, it didn't have counter. Heatran could stop it U-turning. Neither could whatever else people chucked in front of Genesect. Landorus, on the other, is built to be a sweeper. If you're using U-turn, you're hitting 331 Sped tops. Try sweeping through Starmie, Terrakion, Lati@s, or whatever with 331 Speed. Not happening.
