The-Fluffy I understand the sentiment, but I would like to provide some intel from the game design standpoint. It's sort of a "look at it from a different angle" (dev pov) sort of thing. I would like anyone reading this topic to take it into consideration.
It's an undeniable fact the entire fling series is nothing but game-breaking exploits achieved via animation cancel/action queue (because there's no proper limiter input by the devs). They can be (and are) fun, yes, but there's a bigger picture.
Bridge ragdolling into 12 dimensions or Boomerang taking you into space was fun too, but we all understand it was unintended and does not look like something you ever expect to happen. It was good while it lasted, but it is now fixed and I wouldn't say I miss it.
Anything related to animation cancel stuff or physics momentum bugging (all flings basically) is an unintended / accidental product of the combat system.
It fun? Yes. (good)
It intended? No. (bad)
It accessible to everyone?* No. (bad)
It collide with level design? Yes. (bad)
It causes community ruckus?* * Yes. (bad)
*accessible = Everybody knows about it. Case in point - Spinach.
**community ruckus = Threads and/or complaints. Note that intended vs unintended really matters here. Like it's a different scenario when somebody complains about nunchuks for example.
Things usually become pretty bad when devs sleep on something to the point a certain % of people begins adopting and defending it. Things like "this is a skill/technique", "everybody can do it", "adapt", "all games have tricks like these" etc. etc.. These are all player pov conclusions that almost always don't account for the game design part.
Once you start accounting for it, stuff like this is easier to digest.
From the game design standpoint, the main thing here is accessibility.
There is a reason I provided a comment on that and put Spinach as a comparison in the scope of accessibility. In game design this term refers to the ease with which all players, regardless of skill level, physical ability, or prior knowledge, can engage with and enjoy the game.
Accessibility ensures that game mechanics, and the overall experience, is available to the broadest possible audience without requiring external help or prior community knowledge (especially in a competitive pvp setting).
Taking game design standards into account... A proper way any game can address its mechanics is usually done via tutorials, tips & hints, or incremental difficulty curves. Thus, relying on external sources for fundamental game knowledge or mechanics is generally seen as a flaw in accessibility design because it creates barriers for players who may not have access to or knowledge of these resources.
So, relying on external sources is logical and makes sense, but it is not what accessibility really is as per its game design definition. So basically, the need to resort to going out of the game and seeking solutions sort of negates what this accessibility stands for in the first place. Relying on that 'outside' knowledge is what turns into an uneven playing field.
If this was truly accessible, you would see everyone without exception doing it same as they do dropkick for example.