Cool story bro, thanks for the monologue.
This is a correct statement to an extent and I do not disagree with you here, nor in your first post. Professional drivers can bring out the most of any vehicle because they have the skill level to do so.
But making blanket statements like IRS > SRA or:
is categorically wrong no matter how you try massage the message. Don't believe me? Go back to picture story where I talked about a 20+ year old IRS design and both the IRS design of the 370z and the SRA design of the Boss 302. The IRS design of the 240sx is less capable than both the 370z and the Boss 302. Period. There is no disputing that. I even explicitly stated the point of the picture just because you can't leave stuff like that to chance and rogue interpretations.
Here is another example. Take the old Mustang IRS setup. It was bad. So they abandoned it and went back to the SRA setup. Lots of reasons for it being bad, but doesn't change the fact that it was bad. Does that make SRA > IRS? For that instance, on that car, on that chasis, considering the car as a whole...absolutely. Does that make SRA > IRS in general, as a blanket statement or rule? Nope. Just as Red mentioned:
Notice the caveat. It is important.
If people want to make blanket statements about suspensions it should at least be:
IRS should be better than SRA assuming it was well developed. If people were making THAT point, then there is nothing left to say really.
But they aren't, which is the problem. And because they aren't, it is misinformation.