On a completely dry, consistent surface (a race track, for example) then yes, a person can outbrake an ABS system. I remember reading an article about this, and on dry pavement the driver was capable of outbraking the ABS system, but couldn't on a wet road. In the real world, with different kinds of pavement/rain/bumps/cracks/oddly worn tires, ect ect, no. The only times that not having ABS really helps is on loose gravel/snow/sand that type of thing, and even then, it requires a general knowledge of how these things work.
We are, however, forgetting a VERY important element of the whole discussion, and that is the objective of an ABS system.
It was not originally intended to reduce stopping distances. The objective of ABS is to let the car retain it's ability to steer in a panic braking situation.
90% of the population would just slam on the brakes in a panic situation, and therefore lock the brakes and go straight into the back of what they're trying to avoid. With an ABS system, you still retain some of the control, and can turn to avoid whatever is in your way, and AS A RESULT of not keeping the wheels locked, braking distances are reduced, compared to locked wheels.
So, from a general perspective, ABS systems do indeed reduce braking distances for the average driver, on the average driving conditions, but strictly speaking about the absolute fastest way possible to slow down a car without any outside factors like weather and poorly maintained roads, a properly proportioned braking system and threshold braking is capable of outbraking an abs system.
Having said that, I personally prefer no ABS, simply because I don't like the way they feel. In the same way as traction control and automatic transmissions.
