Their tests has some legitimacy, but it does not reveal the whole picture.
CRT definitely has numero uno in lag and motion blur.
But the whole picture includes
absolute lag as well as
lag error margin range.
However, 144 Hz and 240 Hz LCDs have less
lag-variance effects than a 100Hz CRT. This is because of the refresh rate granularity effect (infrequent scanouts on CRT versus more frequent scanouts on newer LCD). So sheer insanely-high refresh rate can now overcome a certain amount of absolute lag disadvantage.
Consequently, because of this, when winning a $100,000 championship in the elite eSports championships -- now 144Hz and 240Hz LCD eSports users can out-perform low-Hz CRT users despite maybe ~1-2ms more absolute lag than the CRT and somewhat more motion blur (but that doesn't matter during fixed-gaze-at-crosshairs,
see this thread -- which also explains why current LCD-based ULMB has had very mixed reviews from competitive gamers in CS:GO). Ultra high refresh rate is a big friend of eSports now!
Lag graidents are much smaller at higher refresh rates. Tighter MIN/MAX/AVG for higher refresh rates. This is true regardless of absolute lag.
Here's an example from Jorim's
GSYNC 101 tests for Blur Busters (begin reading at Page 3 onwards. The VSYNC OFF tests are highlighted on
Page 9).
60 Hertz
240 Hertz
Look at the 1000fps VSYNC OFF result, 60 Hz versus 240 Hz.
You will notice that MIN/AVG/MAX is much tighter from these tests by Jorim. This is from 1000fps high speed video, taken from 40 samples, using the
test methodology here, filming CS:GO. You need lots of real-world (e.g. CS:GO) and lots of runs (e.g. 40) to actually measure your lag error margin. We're one of the very few websites that actually have done this.
Compare the difference between "MIN" and "MAX". Measurement methodology is first-anywhere-on-screen reaction, which is another real-world way to measure lag for real-world VSYNC OFF (unlike Leo Bodnar testing) since you often use peripheral vision, if an enemy begins partially refreshing somewhere on the screen (Even if another part of the screen surface is not yet refreshed), that's still a reaction time advantage to you anyway. Big difference between "MIN" and "MAX" is the lag error margin, and that create aiming errors!
It is very true absolute lag of several 240Hz monitors are worse at 60Hz refresh rate than 60Hz monitors (e.g. console eSports like PlayStation 4), and also versus CRT. However, if you're doing PC eSports, the super-tight lag variances improves flickshots by a huge degree, even with a very slight offset of absolute lag.
Better 240Hz monitors is coming, but eSports players even today's 240Hz monitors now tend to out-compete 100Hz CRT users, especially for fixed-gaze-crosshairs tactics.
There is debate how much absolute lag increase, that one can tolerate, in order to eliminate/reduce "MAX" lag surges in the lag random error margin. Basically, given up a small bit of absolute lag, to get much lower MAX values, for fewer misaims. Tighten the random-lag error of a low refresh rate, but there's definitely a balancing-out effect occurring.
Now, if you know of a 240Hz CRT that can display 1920x1080, let's talk. Then you get the best of all worlds (less random-lag from the reduced refresh granularity effect). Unfortunately, I don't know of any 240Hz CRTs capable of high-rez...
Check out the monitor lists below for 240Hz monitors.