[badsectoracula]

> I forget how refresh rate worked on CRT's though - maybe those could higher than 60?

Yes, even the standard VGA 13h mode (320x200x8) is 70Hz and many CRTs could do 85Hz. By Quake 3's time CRTs that could do 120Hz and above were very common. Personally i have such a CRT as well as another that can do 160Hz.

Also FWIW the refresh rate is only part of the story - CRTs have practically instant "response time" so 120Hz on a CRT vs 120Hz on a LCD feels very different (in favor of the CRT). Supposedly OLED could be made to be close but personally i haven't seen such a case (and people who have both OLED and CRTs still say that CRTs are better there). I have a 165Hz LCD and doesn't hold a candle to the CRTs i have around in terms of motion feel.

Nowadays you can find small-ish CRTs for dirt cheap on Facebook Marketplace, etc (some even give them for free) - i recommend trying to find one that can do 120Hz if for no other reason than to experience the liquid butter smoothness of FPS motion (and join us in the lamenting its loss in modern monitor tech :-P). Also kinda amusing that when those were new chances are the PCs they were used with couldn't do high framerates (and low framerates do not feel as bad on a CRT as on an LCD, but i'm not sure if it is related).

[formerly_proven]

A large reason why CRTs are rather excellent in regards to motion is because they're not sample and hold displays resulting in very low duty cycles (dominated by the phosphor's fall time of somewhere between 200-1000 µs, as rise time is basically instant at <20 ns or so and video bandwidth is well above 100 MHz). That's the main reason why a 240 Hz LCD using BFI for strobing (D=0.5) can't compete with a 120 Hz CRT (D~0.05 or so).