is this true about a 350 sbc vs a sbm

In the real world, daily driver on the street, sbm was better in HP and durability than a sbc, until the 80's, when I stopped rebuilding engines. As far as I was concerned high performance was nearly nonexistent past the mid 70's. The sbm did not need 4 bolt mains, nor did it have oiling problems. Ask anyone with a 340 and a 3 or 4 speed. As for compression, we were all limited by pump and unleaded gas soon enough. The sbc did not have a good intake or exhaust manifolds. Chevrolet had an uncanny habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory by being too cheap. 4 bolts to try and seal flimsy valve covers, cheap timing sets that were all but shot after 50,000 miles, small diameter lifters that failed and chewed up cams, 11/16 valve stems with no stem seals, small diameter valve springs that lost rate all too quickly, and a filter bypass that could recirculate debris throughout the engine, and the cheapest hardware available. Who else used shims to correctly locate their starters, because of poor machine tolerances??? In racing you can throw all that away and use only the good stuff, bringing sbc and sbm closer in performance. I rebuilt enough sbc in my day and they always showed more wear that a similar sbm and always had hardware break, unlike Mopar and Ford. In stock form, daily driver, there is no contest. The sbc is the least factored motor in NHRA and NASCAR. It is the least competitive and least durable. How many times was the 340 factored to higher HP to make the sbc competitive? How many times did NHRA defactor sbc to a lower hp because they over estimated hp numbers? How many times were Ford and Chrysler punished by adding weight or changing body lines to make Chevrolet more competitive? You can't have it both ways, crying that the other guy is too fast and then claim you are the best. Give me a break!