I don't think it was nonsense, you can establish a metric by which classes can be measured. The problem is, each player has a different game experience. It is quite possible that the only Druid you ever played with was lackluster, the DM said some of their spells, like entangle don't work in dungeons, their animal companions die all the time, and wild shape seems pointless.
In another game, the Druid may be the most powerful character, and makes most of the other classes seem pointless and lame. All a tier list does is indicate potential. A class with access to great spells, lots of skills, and powerful ways to defend themselves, destroy or inhibit their enemies, and a lot of "narrative power" has a higher ceiling than one whose schtick is "martial weapons, heavy armor, shields, feats, good BAB, weak saves and no skills". Where the floor is, however, is a bit subjective.
Fighter was intended to be a simple class, but just like the Sorcerer, it proves to be one of the hardest and most complex, because you really need to plan ahead and carefully consider each build choice, because there are few (or no) opportunities to change them. I saw a lot of early Fighters avoid "situational" abilities, focusing on Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Toughness, Improved Initiative, etc., etc., wanting to have basic, numerical, and "always on" abilities. I remember in my very first game a player declaring their Combat Reflexes Feat to be completely useless, because they had no reach, and enemies had no real reason to try to get away from them.
And they refused to accept enlarge person because it would lower their precious Dexterity. In the very next campaign, I played a Cleric with the Strength Domain and a longspear, and I got opportunity attacks all the time, to the point that enemies started to avoid me like the plague- fine by me, as I was a spellcaster and had all the spells to keep my party fighting (and once the Barbarian heard "3d6 weapon damage", he was begging me to use my daily Enlarge on him).
