David Vizard - Which to prioritize - PORT FLOW or PORT VELOCITY?

Dale Davies said
As DV related in the video, Darren Morgan says velocity, velocity, and velocity. That said, a smaller volume head on a larger displacement head will have the flow stall at some point. Essentially what we see on a flow bench when the flow gets to a plateau or drops as the valve is lifted more.

Most of us aren't building Darin Morgan type engines.

Dale Davies said
Again it all comes down to the rest of the engine combination for port volume, flow and velocity.

Generally it comes down to the head that's is the best compromise and is readily available to us.

Dale Davies said
As stated previously, the Ford Boss 302 engines had ports designed for TransAm racing. Those race engines ran up to 9000 and sometimes 9500 RPM. The 1969 street engines had the largest valves, and proved to be a bit soft at the bottom end.

But still functional and for most they would have a hard time getting close to that level of port volume mismatch.

Not saying velocity ain't important, but generally it's not a thing most of us have the ability to do much about it, like many important functions of an engine. The problem I generally have with people uses of the theory of velocity is they generally push people towards going too small in fear of too large. And especially without any idea what's ideal in the 1st place. And don't even factor in other issues cause they got their velocity blinders on, like cam size for a given head to reach power goal, or possible extra hp and usable rpms over the original plan, cost effectiveness, convenience etc..

Most of us aren't building a single purpose no compromise race car that max efficiency it the utmost importance and gonna have custom ports that are epoxied to squeeze every last drop of performance.