The dilemma of measuring work experience

Over and over we see recruiters asking and classifying recrutees based on how many years of work experience they’ve got. But that is the dumbest way to classify talent.
This is how it works:
Let’s assume you’re looking for someone with 4 years of working experience. With this method you can break down those years in hours of work.
Easy. If they’ve worked 40 per week, that’s 120 hours per month. And 1320 hours per year if we discount one month for holidays.
Therefore, if you’re looking for a guy with 4 years of experience that’ll be 5280 hours of work at their backs.
Now let’s take another approach. Following this rule, you’d discarded a guy with 2 years of experience just because it’s not enough. But let’s analyze that guy.
Professionals like to work. They don’t care if they’re at the beach, they work every single day. And they love it. Even though these people usually put 100 hours per week, let’s assume that in average, they put 80 per week. All the weeks in the year (it’s not that crazy.)
That’s 320 hours per month. And 3840 hours per year. Hence, considering our example of 2 years of experience for that guy, he’s put 7680 hours in only 2 years.
Now, with the information on the table. If you were about to hire somebody, who would you pick?
You can say that working more hours doesn’t mean being more productive. And you’re right. But in the other way around we’ve got the same issue.
I want to be clear here. Having more years of working experience means nothing. This is not an universal way to measure the experience of workers. In the end, what matters is attitude and willingness to do something happen.
And if you want to measure the working experience in time, make sure you get the right context. 24 hours are not the same for everybody.
Also, if you are that guy standing at the other side, you can avoid this stupid selection. And the only way to do that, is to pick yourself and make something happen.