4 of my best characters are Jak, Nariko, Spike, and Sweet Tooth.
Someone else already pointed this out, but again, for emphasis, and this goes for everyone in the thread trying to use this argument:
You doing better with one character than another does not make that character better.
Let's imagine there are two characters in the game, Kratos and Jak. Most people would probably say Kratos is better than Jak. This does not mean that Jak cannot beat Kratos--this doesn't even necessarily mean Jak can't win tournaments--the idea is that between two people of absolutely equal skill at the highest level of play, the Kratos is going to win more often.
Let's take some examples from two games with thriving competitive scenes that are both in the Evo lineup this year: Super Smash Brothers Melee, another platform fighter, and Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition, a traditional fighter that arguably has mechanics more similar to PSASBR than Melee.
In Melee, Falco is one of the best characters in the game. This is disputed by literally no one--never in the last year or two on Smashboards have I seen a single person speculate that he is any worse than third best in the game. On the most recent tier list he is second, and there is speculation that on a new tier list that is forthcoming he will surpass Fox and become first.
Conversely, Bowser is one of the worst characters. Again, no one contests this. He's bottom four in the books of literally everyone I've ever seen post.
Extremely oversimplified reasons:
+Falco's short hop lasers allow him incredible stage control +Falco's shine and aerials allow him to perform incredible shield pressure +Falco has the most versatile spike in the game--it's incredibly simple to hit and also works as a combo move +Falco arguably has the best combos in the game. He can easily rack up 40-50% off a solid hit. -Bowser is one of the slowest characters in the game, but lacks the power and combo potential of better slow characters like Ganondorf. -His weight is such that comboing him is a breeze -Has extreme difficulty edgeguarding and getting KOs in general -He basically can't approach any top tier reliably. Fox and Falco have unbelievable combos on him and can camp him with lasers but are fast enough to run away easily on larger stages, Jigglypuff's unreal aerial control makes Bowser unable to approach basically at all, Sheik can chain-grab him from 0-80% or so and then get a free fair for the kill, etc.
Bowser is worse than Falco. This is as close to objective fact as it gets, and no one with any knowledge of advanced Melee play would argue this. Bowser is worse overall than Falco, and also has a losing matchup with Falco--he doesn't have the fortune to have a weirdly good matchup with any high tier, like Young Link does with Jigglypuff.
This does not mean that Bowser will literally always lose to Falco. Bowser has a few tricks, and obviously a very good player can beat a very bad player with basically anyone. But between two equally skilled players with equal awareness of the matchup, the person playing Falco will be the heavy favorite.
Let's take SSF4:AE. Let's talk about Dan. Dan is bad. No one would argue this. Think Ryu except worse in every way (example--he has a "Hadoken," but it only appears right in front of him before disappearing and doesn't actually function as a projectile). He is quite literally a joke character--the developers designed him to be bad. Dan players win matches--it's not impossible for Dan to beat the best character. But it's difficult. And no one would pretend that Dan is even with, say, Cammy, even if a Dan beats a Cammy now and then.
Tiers do not reflect your anecdotes about being good with x or y, tiers are an attempt to reflect objective fact about which characters have better overall tools for winning.