Hi, we are the ugliest and most useless fighting types in existence.

Well since that opinion is objectively wrong (Primeape is the worst and ugliest), I'm afraid it's anti sage for you, thread.

>>33421429
>Machamp
>most iconic gen 1 fighting type
>peaked at OU, won VGC worlds twice
>featured in pokken, SM ride
>stat distribution has influenced many other pokemon of latter generations

>Conkeldurr
>currently at BL, peaked at OU, won VGC world

I'll give you conk for ugliest (still arguable though because of Crabominable or Lucario) because it's not for everybody but OP is clearly delusional for making such claims. I wonder who OP's fave fighting type is

>>33421429
they made Conkeldurr to replace Machamp.
But they did not make a Pokemon to replace Tentacruel and Golbat

>>33422547
It's probably Kommo-o.

>>33422547
>>33422566
Machamp is one of the most iconic fighting types period. Even until now he's the epitome of the type bar shillmons like Lucario and starters like Blaziken and despite being outclassed by his rival Conkeldurr

>>33421851
>Primeape
>not the best

Nice bait, 3/10 made me reply

>>33422566
>Woobat/Swoobat
>Frillish/Jellicent
Design-wise, they covered pretty much everything.

>>33422672
>He's the epitome of his type if you ignore all the other epitomes
:thinking:

>>33422712
Let me spell it out for (You), then. Lucario is popular because it is one of the most shilled mons and yet many would tell you it doesn't look like a fighting type at all. It is not a good representative of the type in terms of aesthetics and many would argue it should have been Psychic type.

Blaziken is a starter AND a shillmon and thus has undue advantage. Its fire type also splits its depiction in many media on what its main draw is.

>>33422547
>machamp
>SM ride
It makes me feel uncomfortable.

>>33421429
But everyone loves Machamp.

File: 1503246519712.png (45KB, 500x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x360px

>>33421429

>>33421429
No.

File: IMG_3349.jpg (46KB, 191x226px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 191x226px

>>33423971
>Not even taking the time to crop out the caption
0/10