I'll give input in the actual thread later, but I want to address a few things.
Ryu incinerating Seth in an ending to justify a hax of his
Nitpick, but this ending is canon, since that was one of the other 24/27 Seth clones that are canonically weaker than the main one.
I meant that most of them seem intended to showcase things that the fighters could do in theory, including feat-wise.
It really depends on the game.
Sometimes there's the "main ending" where the mc beats the boss, and the others are what ifs more or less likely to happen
.
Other times they just show a generic instance of what the characters does after the events of the game are over, without even referencing the boss.
You just have to scrutinize the single ones, I could name 20 fighting games each with their own rules regarding the endings.
My stance remains that if they don't contradict canon material, I consider them fine to be used.
That seems about right.
A good example of that would be Ken's Street Fighter Alpha 3 ending.
In Ken's non canon ending he beat Bison in a fight.
Which is consistent with the fact that Ryu beat Bison canonically in the same game.
Ken is comparable to Ryu so it makes sense that Ken would also be able to beat Bison.
Not really, in that game Bison is even stronger than normal, and canonically Ryu manages to defeat him only when he unleashes the Satsui no Hado.
In the same game literally everyone can defeat Bison, from Akuma to Dan, sometimes they even oneshot him after he regains full health.
To sum up, when you have stuff like "what if Bison actually triggered his secret weapon?" is a good way to gauge its strength, while "what if Chun-Li could kill Bison?" serves no purpose (from a vs perspective) and is just plainly wrong when compared to the rest of the character's displays of strength.