the answer is crt. no motion blur, no input lag, 0ms response time, but motion clarity isn't the only thing to consider. crts are bulky, they use more energy, you can't have high refresh rates with high resolution unless you go interlaced. right now though, monitor prices are outrageous, so if you can get a good price for crt, go for it.

i was interested in this ulmb 2, which claimed to be even better than old lightboost/strobing options, but then i saw the price and decided against it. i miss when big expensive monitor was like $500 at the most.

would it have better performance compared to a CRT or is the motion clarity somehow worse?

Not yet.
Oled technology has the potential to become a "better" CRT, especially when it comes to color depth and overall smoothness at high refresh rates (no backlight). Sure, CRT will always be the number one in response times, but even the first Sony Oled monitors (from ~8 years ago) had a single digit response to colors, which is something thats impossible with lcds.
The problem is, Oleds have been set back by a decade due to screen burn-in issues and the monitors you're seeing now are the equivalent of 256 MB SSDs. Yes, they're better in some ways, but not yet worth the money.
As for now, stick to CRT if you want the best for gaming or buy a 360hz TN LCD if the 4:3 ratio pisses you off. Oleds need 2 more years I'd say, then they'll be the best option.