what do you think is the worst opening

SMH - More dumb voting. Like our votes are going to change the validity of any opening? People will just give opinionated responses that more indicate what they hate facing than what is objectively bad.

Once again, like another thread, can't accept the hard facts.

So many snowflakes these days.

in my opinion the bird is the worst and nobody above -200 elo plays it

when ever i play its the worst opening so no matter how i open my opponent sees right through it and beats me badly three out of four times which means any open i use is useless so all are the worst openings

According to Bent Larsen 1.g4 is the only bad first move.

Bro you forgot about coca cola gambit and sodium attack...

This is a terribly bad opinion to have.

Although probably you confuse Bird's opening (1. f4) with something else.

I play it

nahh bro it just looks bad

A more interesting question is what's the worst opening that people take seriously and play seriously...

As usual it depends alot on what your goals are. For an online below masters setting, of the popular options, I would actually say the Najdorf. Reason is there are much more testing sicilians that will give you easy equality at this level, instead you're playing a passive move a6 and playing a reactionary opening to vie for the maximum objective advantage, but you don't even know the prep deeply enough to follow the objective lines, and neither does the opponent... furthermore there are about 10 serious lines you need to study and you do not have time to do this... it's a giant opening. Worse, it's the most common sicilian so if white is prepared for anything it will be this. And there are so many other sicilians you're passing up which will pose a much greater challenge to your typical below masters opponent... it's just not a good choice until you're at around masters level.

I also think the dutch is just terrible, I've said this before but... this is another giant opening where you must know all the theory to even survive in many cases, and even if you do learn it all - which you don't really have time to do - there's not even alot of payoff, your kingside remains vulnerable the entire game, you can play brilliantly the whole game but still 1 small mistake at a any given point and you lose the game due to checks.

For your typical online player the bird is actually quite good though... the extra move makes quite a difference, and this is one of those openings where alot of players have no idea how to deal with it.

... and the answer certainly isn't the Najdorf. Is this some joke?

People play all sorts of wacky stuff even at the master level. Just read the wikipedia article of IM Michael Basman if you want to see some bizarre openings. Talking about the Najdorf or the Dutch is just ridiculous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Basman

Well predictably you completely ignored the distinction I made between below-master and master play which is what the entire statement is predicated on, and you didn't make a single rational argument either against what I said or justifying your own claim. And why are you talking about odd openings at master level when this is not even relevant in our conversation...? Yet another useless response that does not follow basic logic.

It's entirely obvious that below master level even worse openings are played even more regularly. People play stuff like the Wayward Queen or just play completely random moves.

Hence you're arguing with a completely obvious point and saying nothing. But if the value of playing an offbeat move were completely obvious to the average below-masters player the Najdorf would not be by far the most popular sicilian at all levels. Meanwhile I'm actually answering the OPs question in a way that's useful, whereas you're contributing nothing.

I didn't base the statement on statistics, but for a moment let's ignore your arbitrary, baseless opinion and look at the statistics. This is from 2000-2200 lichess rapid games, which is the level we're talking about.

Here's how various sicilians are performing for black, ranked in order at this level: 
1) Four Knights - black is +8% (way better than white)
2) Taimanov bastrikov - black is +7%
3) Nimozwitsch - black is +3%
4) Dragon - black is +3%
5) Kan - black is +3% 
6) Classical - black is +2%
7) Sveshnikov - - black is +2%
8) Hyperaccelerated Dragon - black is +1%
9) Accelerated Dragon - black is -1% 
10) Najdorf - black is -2%
11) Taimanov w/ a6 - black is -3% (though if black knows the first few moves this changes dramatically, the same isn't true with the Najdorf)
12) Lowenthall - black is -3%

So yes, the Najdorf is almost last in terms of where it's scoring at 2000-2200 level. And the reasons for that are what I've listed. Now, I didn't base my statement on the statistics, I had not even seen them, but what this does do is validate my argument.

There is a huge difference between "not as good as people might think" and "THE WORST". A whole world of difference.

The first one is probably true to the Najdorf, the second obviously isn't.

It's possibly the worst opening choice that's really popular and mainstream, which is what I specified in the comment if you can make the effort to read / think before commenting... it's 10th on the list out of 12, and in practical terms it's lower than the Taimanov, because if you play the first few moves of the Taimanov w/ a6 correctly (transposing into the bastrikov or four knights) it's back to performing extremely well, on par with rank 1 and 2, and you've bypassed the rote testing lines against the four knights / bastrikov... Najdorf is like 2nd worst at this level. Every white players knows the Najdorf, it's a giant amount of theory for black, it's reactionary and passive...

It's an extremely dynamic and active defense. Kasparov used it to crush very good players very quickly. I start to think that you don't know what you're talking about.

All sicilians are very dynamic and active, especially once the middlegame rolls around, but within the opening phase, as sicilians go, the move a6 in the Najdorf is reactionary and passive. It is a waiting move, it allows black to react to whites next move.. This has implications on how the opening plays out.... since it doesn't immediately apply any pressure white can respond in like 10 different ways, it's a giant amount of theory... it also doesn't really allow black to punish white if he slips in the opening since black just has less activity early on, but at club level... when white often does slip in the opening, this isn't what you want. The reason the four knights has a +8% winrate is black has the most activity of any sicilian - both knights are developed and the bishop is opened, and the e6 pawn supports d5 already. At club level this matters, players don't know all the theory and usually bungle the opening, this has a big impact on the outcome of games - in the four knights white usually bungles the first move and just hands black equality in 60% of the games. The Najdorf doesn't play like that. And we can see that black has an 11% higher winrate in the four knights than the Najdorf... that should tell you something. 
We would not just completely ignore these facts and skip ahead to the middlegame, that'd be too duncey...
Ultimately the data just supports what I say and contradicts what you say, that's just the bottom line really.