>>32592888>This doesn't mean Machamp is bad, it means it's not being used that muchYou know I really would like to accept this statement as it is but tell me, why is a pokemon not being used that much?
>not good enough>a better option existsReally, this is just sugarcoating it, and while usage =/= viability, it sure still has some correlation
For comparison, Conkeldurr, with his better bulk, recovery and better offenses, is UU
