The problem with that comparison is that it is essentially impossible. One of the authors requested his name be removed after I pointed out the problem:
To achieve maximum braking with given tires, etc. you must have the brakes balanced such that all four wheels reach the point where the tires slip just a little bit without locking up. Once you've reached that point, any increase in braking effort will actually increase stopping distance, because a sliding tire will not grip the road nearly as well as a rolling one. This means that if one end locks up first, there is no way to improve stopping distance by improving the brakes at that end.
So, improving only the front brakes can only reduce stopping distances if the rear brakes locked up first with the stock brakes. But they don't.
Furthermore, increasing pad area does not increase braking force. Unlike tires on pavement, the brakes obey the 'classic' friction law quite well, which states that friction is proportional only to applied force and the coefficient of friction, NOT the frictional area. My high school physics teacher gave a convincing demonstration of this, with a simple block of 2x4 and a tilted table. The block slid at exactly the same speed, whether it was resting on the 2" side or the 4" side, even though the friction area was doubled.
BTW, Viv, I have wider (5.5") wheels and 205/55 tires in a fairly sticky compound. They are still street tires, but grip significantly better than the stock ones.