Well this is precisely the problem, not enough players take responsibility for themselves as, well, players. There's several fighters out there that eliminates everything the community complains about, but how many do we see sticking with them for more than a few weeks?
And then there's the argument of if a player consistently beats a character that is frowned upon community wide, we'll hear the apologist argument that he was just able to outplay the perpetrator, but if the perpetrator gets just one win against the same guy, it'll be "LOL SEE, IT'S STILL 7-3 GUISE". Where's the middle ground?
More often than not, Kenshi would only ever beat KL because the KL player picked him up solely for the Kenshi matchup, and had no idea what they were doing, or what made the matchup bad, I think I speak for every seasoned Kenshi player that they'd rather deal with KL upclose than Kabal or Cyrax. Then we had players that had the nerve to call it a completely even matchup as a result.
(For the record, I don't think KL was Kenshi's worst matchup or 7-3 upwards for that matter, it was simply the most straight-forward counterpick compared to Kenshi's other bad matchups.)
Although IMO people are overreacting to MMH a bit so far, Kabal was hailed as having no weaknesses by players who greatly exaggerated his meter build and took almost 2 years to start punishing his buzzsaw. (But I do still think he was the best in MK9 because he collectively had the best matchup chart with no clear cut bad matchups)
I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anyone, just thought I'd give some perspective, for what it's worth.