@DetroitLolcat: There is one problem with your logic: The .... people, 5000+ years ago when the first competitive game was created, did it first! Momentum is part of any competitive game where the aim is to outsmart your opponent and win under whatever winning condition. Momentum is just a term for how smoothly the game is going for you or your opponent.
That being said, I dont believe GF made pokemon with momentum in mind.
And I also don't feel that there are many players who actively look at pokemon and at the teambuilding process with momentum in mind and think of how momentum can be obtained and held as good as possible.
Sure, you may think of strengths of a pokemon and who can counter who, or even think of strategies, but momentum is really a little different than just that.
For that reason, I think the momentum concept is good in that it can teach us to look at competitive pokemon differently, specifically how to make momentum work in your favor far more controlled and directly.
I believe the exploration of the gameplay mechanic momentum in the game pokemon is going to teach us a lot about how to directly influence momentum in games and how to build teams looking specifically at momentum, for one. If not more.
That being said.
In defense of my concept, I will agree that most good, existing OU Pokemon can achieve momentum on their own (I covered this in the 'Justification' and 'Explanation' sections of my post), and, indeed, any Pokemon that comes out of the CAP process will be able to achieve momentum in-battle based on its various attributes (typing, stats, etc.) or otherwise be completely useless. However, the current metagame lacks a Pokemon specifically designed with momentum in mind. When you read a RMT, you'll be hard-pressed to see something like "I have Blissey on the team so that I can build momentum off of special attackers" because teambuilders don't necessarily think in terms of momentum when constructing teams. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to see the word "momentum" in an RMT at all, as the concept is really only considered within actual battles (see how the word "momentum" is peppered throughout any good warstory).
Any top player in this metagame should agree that momentum is the most crucial element in any given match; however, "momentum" itself is a rather vaguely defined term that is never really explored in concrete terms. Is it keeping opposing teams on the defensive? Forcing switches? Good prediction? Spamming U-turn? These have all been approaches to achieving momentum, but they are also player-side and largely synonymous with "strategy," as opposed to Pokemon-side and regarding a Pokemon's role on the team.
This is pretty much what I think the community should be exploring with this concept, in a nutshell. A CAP based off of this concept should be one that allows a player to consider how momentum plays into the teambuilding process. However, the competitive Pokemon community doesn't really have a firm grasp on what "momentum" is or how a team's synergy relates to its ability to gain and maintain momentum. This sort of stuff will be fleshed out in the early stages of the process, should the community choose this concept, and should be able to give us a firmer grasp on one of the more intriguing aspects of competitive Pokemon, as well as a solid direction for the actual construction of the CAP itself.
tl;dr, I don't think this concept is too vague or redundant. No one puts Gliscor on a team because of its momentum-building or shifting capabilities; they put it there to be a reliable check to Fighting types and Excadrill. If the concept seems too vague, it's because it attempts to base a Pokemon around a role that few ever consider when putting teams together, which I think would have a profound teaching effect on the community.
AK, like I also said above, for the most part, I think your concept is great.
It's only the lack of direction for the actual pokemon that I dislike.
Throughout this reply, you yourself also state that pokemon gain momentum when played to their strengths, for instance, switching in a Blissey to a special attacker or a Gliscor to a fighting pokemon. You also state that most good OU pokemon can achieve momentum on their own. You also mention in your quote that this can be done through various fashion, i.e. "Is it keeping opposing teams on the defensive? Forcing switches? Good prediction? Spamming U-turn?"
But you must admit that most of these good OU pokemon that are capable of scoring momentum are only capable of doing that through the niches they excel at. A frail offensive pokemon can scare the shit out of a defensive pokemon that can do nothing to touch that offensive pokemon, so a switch is forced. However, that frail offensive pokemon is probably not going to counter another offensive pokemon by soaking up it's hits and forcing the opponent's pokemon to switch since he can't do anything to it anyway. (If that makes sense).
What I'm saying is, if you want us to make a pokemon specifically made with momentum in mind, that still doesn't tell us what you want us to make.
If you want a pokemon that can very often net you momentum, I believe there are already a few examples of that. Kyogre, Dialga, Palkia, Arceus, etc. They can scare the shit out of just anything OU by offensive and defensive prowess, etc.
Seeing as we don't want CAP1 to end up in Ubers, being able to score momentum of just about anything does sound a little uber-characteristic-ish.
All I'm saying is, if we are done discussing anything and everything there is to discuss about momentum, I still don't believe we can actually go to the typing stage or whatever stage actually, and know what to build. Is it a pokemon that can try to score momentum through defensive/countering/offensive/utility/scouting/pivoting/leading options? Or perhaps a combination of these without ending up in ubers? Perhaps, through discussion, we may even find different niches that gain us momentum, that can be added to this list. But having this pokemon be capable of all those things at once sounds Uber. So then we have to pick what kind of pokemon we actually want to build from this list.
And that's where I believe your concept is vague. Don't get me wrong, I believe that discussing momentum is very good and the concept in that regard is good. But then what? What are we actually going to build once we know everything there is to know about momentum?
Because even if we can probably dig deeper into momentum, common sense dictates that we already know well enough that momentum is done through playing to a pokemon strengths and making use of specific situation. (You still can't switch Gliscor into a fighting type when it's spamming Banded Ice Punches, for instance, even though it's a strength of his to switch into fighting types, the situation does not allow for him to switch in).
Designing a pokemon without any specific direction, but one that can just regardless of situation and strengths gain momentum just sounds Uber to me.
That's why I like Slowing the Pace as a concept more. It's a variant on your idea in that it still wants us to dig into momentum as a gameplay mechanic, the discussion are probably the same in that regard, but when we actually get to building the pokemon, he also says what he wants the pokemon be able to do with momentum. He wants to slow it down. How we actually do that, no idea, but at least it's more focused and gives us direction when we actually get to building the pokemon.