My two cents.
How can it be a bad idea to have the best brakes one can in a car?
You would put the best tires, and engine that you can afford in. Why not brakes to?
For the time, the brakes new were nothing more then adequate.
Why Detomaso was married to the rear configuration is beyond me. It makes no sense except for production cost reasons.
I interpret the front proportioning valve as an attempt to cover up the inadequacy of the rear.
Just like it costs money to go fast and some say how fast can you afford to go, it isn't cheap to do brakes either.
Depending on the criteria controlled by the cars owner, such as wheels and tires, there are going to be a lot of options for brakes.
Some have tried to package a brake system at a reasonable cost that has been engineered to a degree and is ready to bolt on with no trial and error. That's great.
Probably everyone is going to have a critique of them in one form or another?
The only thing really that we can agree upon on brakes is that there are options and you don't have to stay with the stock system.
I think virtually all responsibly engineered replacement systems available now are going to be superior to the original.
For me, the only question is how much I can afford to spend on brakes since I feel strongly that the originals on my car must be upgraded in some significant way soon.