I have seen the comparisons and will acknowledge that for some situations a tripod will make a noticeable difference in sharpness. 

I lugged tripods all over for a few years, but I found it hampered my shooting style.  As Tan pointed out I like the freedom to change angles or positions on the fly, particularly since I am shooting people, not landscapes or static objects.

For the half of my work that is shot outside, I find it easier to plan shoots for good light, use fast lenses, and supplement the natural light with reflectors and/or flash to get the sharpness I want. 

In studio I used to have hot lights and I had to use a tripod because I could not get the shutter speeds I needed.  My back would get so sore from hunching over that tripod for hours!!  Since I got my fast strobes a couple of years back my tripod has been gathering dust. 

If I was  "People Shooter" like most of your port nicely illustrates, I would give up the tripod also. With people in action outdoors or inside you need to move with the subjects to get the "just right" shot.

However I am not a people shooter i prefer shooting subjects that do not talk to me!  Like farms, scenics. sports, wildlife, etc. After a million weddings and studio portraits for 55 years, I've grown tired of directing people.
But with my age (71) I cannot hold a camera steady as I used to so on many occasions I use a monopod and image stabilized lenses and that combo works very well.

To each their own.

-Larry

I never almost ever use a tripod when shooting dynamic subjects. Then again, I think there is a place for tripod usage even there.
We tend to shoot on the fly and we are so used to using shutter speed and high ISO to "cheat" for us. Assuming that it will bring us that sharp image.
I look back to the days I was shooting 4 by 5 and 8 by 10, where the tripod is essential. I shoot less, and my useful images were far higher in count.
Maybe there is something there to consider. The tripod "slows us down" where we contemplate more and thus, create that one shot that matters, rather than blast away on our motor drive / continuous xxx fps.
Brings us back to the day of watching the war movies. The privates shoot away with their machine gun hitting everything but missing the enemy , and the sargeant takes one shot with his rifle and drops the enemy.  Marksmanship vs speed. Like football (soccer to you), the dribbler never ever gets the goal; the crackshot does.

I will use a tripod, even in daylight if I know I want to create a HDR image.  Otherwise, I'll only lug it around at night.

  But with my age (71) I cannot hold a camera steady as I used to so on many occasions I use a monopod and image stabilized lenses and that combo works very well.

the photography i like to do doesnt usually give me the luxury of schlepping a heavy tripod, so i've also gone with a monopod - worked well in the Andes at over 16,000'

another unintended sideeffect of monpods for older photographers, besides getting you into places that don't allow tripods, is i've had many people make room FOR me when they see i'm using a 'cane'

s

I have a giottos tripod that does the octopus macro thing, but rarely use it for that (just bought good macro flash to hopefully reduce how much I need it for that) so I mostly use it for landscapes, especially morning and night but not much else.  About to replace it with gitzo traveller or benro ripoff and rrs head which is less about half the weight so should see more use.