I use Git, and am familiar with its benefits and drawbacks, and I don't see more than incremental value for 95% of source control users. It is inherently complex and arcane, and the primary benefit from adding all that complexity (distributed version control) is simply not that useful for most situations.
I think if you're going to make a comment like this, you have to defend the decision to use the new system. Simply pointing to the "fuss" is not enough, when you're rebutting an argument that the fuss is unjustified.
I would say amending commits, creating (and easily merging) topic branches, making offline commits, tracking remote branches (on different repositories, even), and cherry picking commits are more than incremental improvements - they completely change your workflow for the better.
And I'm not sure where you 95% figure comes from, but I see thousands of people using the above features daily. The number keeps growing, too.
As for my rebuttal, the parent was stating as fact that Git was only incrementally better than, say, Subversion. I was merely pointing out that this statement was opinion - not trying to prove it wrong.
In my experience, Mercurial delivers the advantages of git without being "inherently complex and arcane". I would recommend it over e.g. SVN because it has far the flexibility of DVCS features available (and its extension system), but in the case of one user, it behaves very similarly to SVN.