I really dislike the implication from a few people here that if a person is not a highly ranked, recognized, or sponsored tournament player, then their opinion is immediately irrelevant to this thread or tier lists in general. So if a person like me, for instance, who lives in the Midwest and has almost zero access to tournaments, sponsorship, and events, has an opinion about this tier list it's just irrelevant? Or if someone spends most of their time playing online rather than offline, it's totally fine to just write them off?
Shouldn't it be about whether or not the person posting is actually correct? For instance, I'd say that cyrax's placement at the #1 spot on this list is at best unwarranted, at worst flat out wrong, because the community has yet to see a cyrax win a major. I know that cyrax has all the tools to win a tournament and play against the top 5, but he hasn't done so. So why place him at the top? Because of his potential? That seems like a bad reason. Couldn't the same be said about Smoke's potential for 100% resets, even if they might be more difficult? So why isn't smoke #1? Kabal also still has a block stun infinite, so why not put him on top? Either way you swing it, from a practical or theoretical standpoint, it doesn't seem like cyrax deserves to be #1. I'll give him top 3, but not #1.