* Hunters (the fact I can say this for an entire class without really stretching the truth much is hilarious, survival is... okay, but marksmanship is total !@#, setting aside BM because it's always bad)
Except that MM was damned good last tier, and Survival is now doing pretty well (enough that hunters are above the class median).
* Fury, complete with the "right where we want it" post from Blizzard, which generally I don't honestly care too much about because you _can_ respec Arms, but expecting people who enjoy it to respec Arms is about as valid as telling ret paladins "Go suck a #*%#, you can go Holy"
Fury was possibly over-nerfed, though it's not much behind Ret, and would probably parse at about the same if it was the top warrior spec, so it is actually roughly where it 'should' be.
* Warlocks are just flat-out bad in anything other than lots of targets to DoT, and that's _with_ a legendary
Sorry, but that's just not true. Aside from Hagara, on which they suck, warlocks have at least one spec that's good on the first six fights in 25H DS. This puts locks above the median on all but Hagara, and as there are plenty of add fights in DS, saying 'it's just the adds' in not reasonable. The problem that locks do have is that which spec is good on a given fight is highly variable, so they need to keep current with at least two specs to excel.
But honestly, an exhaustive list should not be necessary. Just go look at logs, note that ret paladins are middle of the pack which means you are by definition in a better place than about half of the players in this game, and then accept that while you may not like a proc nerf, you are not Jesus Christ, martyr to the hatred of those Blizzard temple jews*.
Again. It's not about being terrible. It's about being a fraction above the median and getting nerfed. Why? What was the point?