So, did you actually test this scientifically somehow?
For instance, take two identical handguns, one with some other standard sight, and the other with these, and several shooters of varying skill levels, and use a shot timer to time a large number of shots with each combination.
You can't just cite that "no one in these totally arbitrary competitions uses these, so they're clearly terrible." While that may be true, correlation is not causation. There may be another reason no one uses them in those competitions, or that they're poorly suited for that use, where the competition is generally done under ideal conditions, but better suited to some other application.
With that out of the way I'm totally willing to take your word for it; I just had to call out your specious justification for your conclusion.
I used a shot timer. Yes, a more in depth test could have been done, like using the same exact gun or two of the same exact models of the same gun, etc. but ultimately it's not really all that necessary IMO. The honest truth is that "fast" is a relative term, especially when it comes to shooting handguns. In my personal opinion, the average shooter does not "see fast enough" or have the trigger manipulation skills enough to run consistently enough on the shot timer at speeds much under ~1/2 second splits, or really push the limits enough to determine which is "faster". What I mean by that is, if a person can't run pretty consistently down to about several hundredths of a second, there are a whole lot of other variables at play that can affect speed, which makes it difficult to determine. Also, speed is nothing without accountability. Now I think one way it could be tested a bit more accurately is if we tested not just pure speed on the shot timer, but speed combined with accuracy, or shot group size. So maybe a drill or a few drills of shooting groups on multiple targets, maybe even at several distances.
You are accurate in that correlation is not "proof" alone. I guess I should have clarified it a different way, so the correlation makes a bit more sense and has more backing it up. In action pistol competitions, the ultimate point is shooting the fastest with the highest degree of accuracy while problem solving throughout a variety of variables within one's skill level. Considering this, and considering some of the money involved in "winning", there is a significant amount of incentive to "be the best". Look at the Bianchi Cup, for example. The 1st place purse is something like $500k+. Tenths or hundredths of a second make a big difference there. There's IPSC, there's Steel Challenge, and lots of other similar competitions with similar performance barriers to achieve for a person to be competitive.
Compare that with the fact that some of the same people have been continuously pushing the limits even farther every year for the past 2-3 decades, considering the level of competition and incentive to continue being at the pinnacle of performance....I mean we can kind of extrapolate from that, that some of the things those people do or some of the things they use might be the absolute best things for some of those specific purposes. Doesn't mean it's the best for everyone, but at least for those particular people, under those particular circumstances of performing at the complete apex of speed and accuracy, they're apparently the tools necessary to do the job. If we take any other aspect of performance handgun shooting, it's somewhat similar. Like grip, stance, etc. All of the industry leaders have evolved into performing some of those fundamentals pretty much the same as each other, maybe with minor variations here and there since human physiology is infinitely variable.
Ultimately, this is all kind of beside the point that, if people want to shoot faster, they really should instead be focusing on learning what they need to see, how to see it, training their eyes to see "faster", and training their trigger finger to do the same. Ultimately that will make substantially more difference than sights alone.