More porter was shipped to India than pale ale. Would you consider porter by definition a bad beer?
Porter was already strongly hopped--a practice that overwhelms other flavors introduced in the brewing process, not just those that develop during transport. As a style of beer, yes, it is worse than more lightly hopped styles.
Or at least that's what the subjective testing in my household shows. De gustibus non est disputandum. Your own testing might rank porters differently, according to your own tastes. But if the test subject does not specifically enjoy the flavor imparted by hops, then all strongly-hopped beers will rank poorly. For someone that does really like hops, all the beers that are basically carbonated alcoholic hop juice will rank highly.
As for myself, I hate IPAs. In a double-blind test, I will always rank all the IPAs in the test set as dead last, with tasting notes such as "worst beer I have ever tasted" and "this beer causes suicidal ideation". It's still okay for other people to like them, I suppose, but I will never be able to understand those who do.
In double-blinded taste tests conducted in my home, the adults concluded that Vienna lagers are the best, and IPAs are the worst.
So I would like to subscribe to your theory that brewers that are bad at brewing just throw more hops at the problem, so they can more easily sell their mistakes. Got some skunk's bathwater? Throw some hops in it!
The IPA was invented because beer shipped to India acquired off flavors due to the longer travel times. It is almost by definition bad beer.