I know you think you're coming off smarter than everyone else, but it's not how it's landing. Turns out things are not that overly reductive to that extent at all in the real world
I'm not sure what you mean by "apologist" or what you're trying to say, I'm not the person you're answering to, and I have no dog in this fight.
But you're talking in a very affirmative manner and apparently trying to say that one is "correct" and the other is not, while absolutely ignoring context and usage.
I recommend you either run yourself, or find on the web, a benchmark about not a single HTTP request, but an actual web page, requesting the html, the css, the js, and the images. Don't even need to go modern web, even any old pre 2010 design with no font or anything else fancy will do.
You will see that HTTP 1 and 1.1 are way, way worse at it that HTTP 2. Which is why HTTP 2 was created, and why it should be used. Also the sad joke that was domain rolling to trick simultaneous request per host configurations.
Overall, your point of view doesn't make sense because this is not a winner takes all game. Plenty of server should and do also run HTTP 1 for their usage, notably file servers and the likes. The question to ask is "how many request in parallel do the user need, and how important that they all finish as close to each other as possible instead of one after the other".
You can transfer as many requests in parallel with HTTP/1.1 as you like by simply establishing more TCP connections to the server. The problem is that browsers traditionally limited the number of concurrent connections per server to 3. There’s also a speed penalty incurred with new connections to a host since initial TCP window sizes start out small, but it’s unclear whether that initial speed penalty significantly degrades the user experience.
The fact that anyone running wrk or hey can coerce a web server to produce hundreds of thousands of RPS and saturate 100Gb links with plain old HTTP/1.1 with connection reuse and parallel threads (assuming of course that your load tester, server, and network are powerful enough) ought to be enough to convince anyone that the protocol is more than capable.
But whether it’s the best one for the real world of thousands of different consumer device agents, flaky networks with huge throughput and latency and error/drop rates, etc. is a different question indeed, and these newer protocols may in fact provide better overall user experiences. Protocols that work well under perfect conditions may not be the right ones for imperfect conditions.
TCP connections are bottlenecked not just by the browser/client, but also at the load-balancer/server. Modulo SO_REUSEPORT, a server can maintain at most 64k active connections, which is far below any reasonable expectation for capacity of concurrent requests. You have to decouple application-level requests from physical-level connections to get any kind of reasonable performance out of a protocol. This has been pretty well understood for decades.
That's a lot of mays. One might imagine that before this stuff becomes the latest version of an internet standard, these theoretical qualifications might be proven out, to estimate its impact on the world at large. But it was useful to one massive corporation, so I guess that makes it good enough to supplant what came before for the whole web.