He is comparing apples and oranges and his conclusion can only be characterized as widely misleading and off the mark.
The most generous possible interpretation is to say that he's not being intentionally misleading but actually believes what he writes. I fail to see how that improves matters.
> he was suggesting its is his superior tool and technology that allowed his team to do this
He really thinks it makes sense that a "C program that was looked at by thousands of eyes of quite hardcore low-level Unix hackers over a few decades" is that much slower than something he threw together? That's like doing some back of the napkin math in a bar and declaring relativity wrong (while also not being Edward Witten). Any reasonable person would suspect that this isn't a very likely outcome and dig deeper to figure out if that's really true or not. My guess is he just implemented a very trivial and naive version of the C code and that's why it is faster.