That's not what I meant. You seem to have missed the point where you outright claimed it was inconsistent without having tested it out
yourself.
It does not consistently outperform another variant of the set and relies on surprise value.
This is merely your opinion. If you don't back it up by arguments, then it'll be just that, an opinion.
Then, you might argue you did try to back it up, by this quote:
Running a 75 BP move over a 120 bp move with no real utility gain = gimmick.
However, that's disconsidering my counter-argument:
You're only looking at the BPs. It isn't "switching a 75 BP move over a 120 BP move with no real utility gain", it's switching a 120 BP/90% move for a 75 BP/100% one + 50% defense drops + attack drops. Unless you want to run Intimidate Head Smash, but there's no point in running Intimidate if you're slowly killing yourself.
Also, the original wording of the set I posted doesn't really imply I tested it. If a set isn't tested, it may still be posted for
discussion, which is what we were doing until you started assuming the set wasn't worth discussing.
(I'll still edit the post and make the language a bit more subjective, though, to make it absolutely clear it's an
idea.)
Either way, why should a set not be worth discussing if it isn't tested? Why isn't an idea worth discussing?
If you don't want to discuss it, then don't, but don't make it sound as if the set is automatically worthless, if you would.
EDIT: also,
this thing. About "Theorymon".